Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Blizzards (Losses to Farmers)

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his assessment of the losses to farmers in southern Scotland caused by the blizzards of 23 and 25 April; and what consideration has been given to the payment of compensation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): It is too early for a final assessment. A preliminary survey indicates that the bulk of the Scottish hill farming industry has escaped relatively unscathed, though there are reports of heavy losses by individual farmers in the south-western and border areas. I shall consider the matter further when I have fuller details of the losses.

Mr. Lang: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although it seems that the overall situation may not be as bad as one feared, does he not agree that some individual farmers, especially in my constituency, have suffered badly? Can he hold out any hope of aid towards recovery for them under one or other of the funds under the common agricultural policy? Will the Government add their weight to such an application?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Information that I have received suggests that some farmers have suffered severe losses, as they have in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and in Ayrshire too. In the past assistance has been received from the European Community disaster fund for this sort of occasion. I understand that the National Farmers Unions are considering whether to put a case direct to the Commission. My officials will be available to help in preparing any such case.

Mr. Milian: There were some reports that the Scottish Office had turned down the suggestion of making financial recompense. Are those reports inaccurate? Is it not true that the initiative to the Common Market should come from the Government, not from the NFU?

Mr. Younger: I did not see such reports, but if there were any they were inaccurate. The Scottish Office has not turned down such a suggestion. It is normal for organisations to apply to the Commission, but my officials will help in doing so.

Mr. Grimond: Although my constituency did not suffer heavily from those storms, when the Secretary of

State is considering the condition of agriculture in general will he bear in mind the poor economic returns that it is suffering? Will he consider some general help to the industry?

Mr. Younger: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he will appreciate, the decision to be made is whether there has been such a large-scale national disaster that special aid is required. I agree that agriculture has had a difficult time generally but the Government have done all they can to help.

Secondary Schools (Expenditure Per Pupil)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in each of the past three years at constant prices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Local authority current expenditure on secondary schools at November 1979 prices, excluding items such as meals and milk, was £778 per pupil in 1977–78 and £786 in 1978–79. The provisional figure for 1979–80 is £813 and the provision made in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81 was £825 per pupil.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that those attending secondary schools in Scotland are benefiting fully from the extra expenditure on their education and that the extra money is not being wasted on more administration?

Mr. Fletcher: I take my hon. Friend's point. We are satisfied that sufficient provision is being made in our secondary schools to give the school population a first-class education. We are constantly urging local authorities to ensure that the expenditure is used in that way and not wasted on unnecessary administration.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be increases and decreases of expenditure to keep up with the times? Will he accept that there is widespread appreciation of the Government's increase in funding for microcomputers in schools? Is he aware that already in Madras college in St. Andrews there is to be a demonstration within the next fortnight of the work that pupils have done in programme development?

Mr. Fletcher: I am pleased to hear that. I have seen examples of the splendid use being made of microcomputers in a number of schools in Scotland. Children take to the new technology with great ease. It is therefore most important that the Government's programme should be introduced now so that the younger generation will not grow up with fears of modern technology.

Mr. O'Neill: Surely the Minister is not being frank with the House. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot condemn local authorities for overspending and at the same time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister tell the House what level expenditure on education by authorities would have reached had his guidelines on rating been followed? He cannot claim high levels of expenditure and at the same time condemn local authorities.

Mr. Fletcher: We condemn local authorities which wastefully spend the funds made available. We do not


condemn local authorities which make proper use of the funds made available for education—for example, the funds that I was happy to announce to the House this afternoon.

H. D. Lee, Greenock (Redundancies)

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to provide employment services for those declared redundant at the H. D. Lee factory in Larkfield industrial estate, Greenock.

Mr. Younger: All the normal employment services of the Greenock jobcentre are available to the redundant workers. In addition, a team of employment advisers from the Manpower Services Commission's employment service division is ready to visit the factory to offer advice on alternative employment and training opportunities.

Dr. Mabon: Is the Secretary of State aware that this firm, unlike most firms in my constituency, is behaving badly to its employees, who have reacted by having a sit-in for nearly 15 weeks? I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the company and to ask it to explain why it has acted in this way towards my constituents. I would at least hope that the Secretary of State would turn to the Scottish Development Agency and seek to find another firm in this activity to sustain employment in the area for these loyal and hard-working people.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The employees concerned must be upset to have their employment terminated. The circumstances were no doubt particularly upsetting to them. We are ready—from the SDA or other sources—to assist any new viable project which it may be possible to devise for this factory or the area. However, the decision to discontinue production is for the firm.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that this problem has been going on for many weeks in Greenock? Is he telling the House that, as Scotland's industry Minister, he has done nothing to try to resolve this problem on behalf of the workers at this factory in Greenock?

Mr. Younger: There is nothing that I can do if the workers concerned feel strongly enough to act as they have been acting. Nor can I do anything to make more pairs of jeans, or whatever else, at that factory. It is a commercial decision for the company. I have given all the help that I can to the employees.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to do his best for Greenock. As the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the hon. Member must ask a question.

Mr. McQuarrie: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend consider asking the Minister with responsibility for industry to visit the factory and discuss with the workers the possibility of getting some alternative means of keeping the factory in production?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. As I made clear, we are ready at any time to assist with or advise on any new project for the factory. The company has decided that it cannot continue to

manufacture jeans at this factory. As a matter of interest, other companies in Scotland manufacturing similar products seem to be carrying on.

Unemployment (Strathclyde)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to lower the level of unemployment in the Strathclyde region.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In addition to the expansion of the West Central Scotland special development area my Department has, since May 1979, offered selective financial assistance to more than 200 projects in Strathclyde. We have continued the development of the new towns and the Glengarnock task force, and we have taken special initiatives such as the enterprise zone at Clydebank. "Locate in Scotland" is actively promoting the region and the Scottish Development Agency is committing substantial resources there.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that, in view of the Manpower Services Commission's projection, published this morning, that long-term unemployment will continue to rise dramatically, people in Scotland will find his answer dangerously complacent? Is it not time that the Government changed their policies and started to invest money in public projects, particularly capital projects, to get the people of Strathclyde back to work?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind when he accuses me of complacency that since May 1979 more than 200 projects have been offered selective financial assistance. They involved around 23,000 jobs, and the total associated investment amounted to more than £400 million. There is nothing complacent about that.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that the Government are concentrating a far higher proportion of Government aid on Strathclyde than did the Labour Government and that Strathclyde has been helped particularly by the massive aid that the Government have given to the shipbuilding and steel industries?

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Last year, the Government made available £1,121 million to the steel industry, much of which is in Strathclyde. This year, the figure is £730 million. The shipbuilding industry has also received substantial support.

Mr. Milian: When will Ministers stop making optimistic and misleading statements about all the wonderful new jobs that are coming to Scotland and instead face the reality that unemployment in Scotland will soon go beyond 300,000? There is no support for the Government's policies in Scotland. It is down to only 15 per cent. in the public opinion polls. Unless there is a complete reversal of the Government's policies, the outlook for Scotland will continue to be extremely grim.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should reverse our policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of reducing inflation and interest rates?

Mr. John MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance in Strathclyde of employment and employment prospects in the defence establishments at Coulport and Gairloch? Does he agree that the anti-nuclear posturing of a portion of the Labour Party, plus the striking civil


servants at Coulport, does not help to bring to the defence establishments in Strathclyde the investment that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) wants?

Mr. Fletcher: The Labour Party is famous for its posturing. The point made by my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Defence jobs are important in Scotland. The opportunities that new jobs provide should be welcomed, not criticised, by the Opposition.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that, despite all the initiatives that he has named today—many in my constituency—unemployment in Cunningham is still more than 21 per cent.? Last week, Beechams advertised 70 new jobs in the local press and there were 2,800 applicants for them.
Is the Minister further aware that people in Ayrshire believe that the only way to solve unemployment is for the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) to resign and for the Government to call a general election?

Mr. Fletcher: Nothing could be more dangerous for the Scottish economy than for the Labour Party to come back into power. I know that there is high unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere. However, if the Labour Government had been realistic and taken heed of the need to reduce inflation and to tackle Scotland's economic problems at their root, unemployment would not be as high as it is today.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide long-term employment is to create jobs manufacturing goods that customers want to buy and that capital projects, however desirable, do not produce many jobs?

Mr. Fletcher: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. For example, the oil industry has created 90,000 new jobs in Scotland in the past 12 years, and there are 40,000 jobs in electronics, and more coming.

Courts (Industrial Action)

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken as a result of the effect of the Civil Service industrial action on the Scottish courts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The sheriffs principal at Glasgow and Edinburgh, where there is strike action, continue in consultation with the Scottish Office, the Scottish Courts Administration, the sheriffs and court users to see how to increase the amount of work which sheriffs, without the assistance of supporting staff, can undertake. Emergency cases continue to be dealt with, and I am glad to be able to say that a limited amount of other business has been possible, but the courts will not be able to achieve anything near normal working until staff return to duty.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister agree that the time is overdue for the introduction of legislation similar to the Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1979? Does he not agree that the time has come for meaningful negotiations with the Civil Service unions so that there may be an end to that dispute?

Mr. Rifkind: If the Government thought that emergency legislation would bring back normal working to the courts, we should introduce it. However, sadly, that is not so. The greatest service that the hon. Gentleman

could do in this regard would be to stop making the kind of inciting speeches that he made in Cumbernauld earlier this month, when he encouraged civil servants to escalate their action and thereby bring hardship to old-age pensioners and others on pensions and cause disruption to the general public.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. Friend agree that people who work in the courts have an overriding duty to sustain and promote the administration of justice? Will he take an early opportunity to remind those people who are hindering justice by industrial action that that duty is greater than their desire for personal gain?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is, of course, correct. It is fortunate that on this occasion, unlike the last occasion under the Labour Government, the industrial action has been restricted so far to the Edinburgh and Glasgow sheriff courts, whereas last time it affected every sheriff court in Scotland, the High Court and the Court of Session.

Mr. Dewar: Do we take it from what the Minister said that there is no need for emergency legislation to preserve individual rights? Does the Minister accept that public confidence in the administration of justice has been badly shaken, in that the busiest court in Europe has been effectively closed since 23 March? Although he may think that inaction is a plausible posture for this Administration, will he accept that most people in Scotland think that it is time that we saw some signs of life from Ministers?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will know that the provision of discretion to the courts to extend what would otherwise be time-barred civil cases, introduced under earlier legislation, has dealt with the problem that could not be dealt with at the time of the last industrial action under the Labour Government. Normal working can return to Glasgow sheriff court not by emergency legislation—sadly, it would not have that effect—but only by those who normally work in the courts recognising that their real duty is to the public and thus returning to normal working.

Insulating Grants

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the uptake of domestic insulating grants in Scotland; whether he plans a further advertising campaign during the summer; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: Despite extensive publicity last autumn, the uptake of domestic insulation grants in Scotland has remained relatively low. However, the extension of the scheme in August 1980 to provide 90 per cent. grant for the low-income elderly, and a small increase in the maximum rate of grant for other applicants, has resulted in some increase in the number of grants given in 1980–81 over the previous year. I shall certainly wish to consider further publicity later this year.

Mr. Carmichael: Has the Minister thought about using youth employment to help old people to insulate their lofts and their houses generally? Does he realise that any false economy in insulation would be silly, in view of the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: We are willing to consider anything that would enable a greater take-up of the resources that are


available. Local authorities implement these proposals, and in the current year we were able to give them every pound that they asked for this purpose.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the Minister should consider making a 100 per cent. grant to the low paid and elderly people? Is it not true that those people cannot meet the 10 per cent. difference? Would it not be socially and economically desirable and desirable in every way if domestic insulation were widely increased?

Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will recall that it was only in August last year that the proportion that can be paid was increased to 90 per cent. At the moment, there is no reason to believe that people find it impossible to pay the remaining 10 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to prove what he says, we shall be happy to see it.

Mr. John MacKay: Has my hon. Friend read disturbing reports about some cavity wall insulation products, which suggest that in the long term they are not entirely safe? Will he undertake that the Scottish Office will look into the matter before giving grants for cavity wall insulation material which may have a damaging effect on the health of the people who live in the houses?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government continually monitor the products that are used to see whether they are safe or whether they create any problems. If there were any reason to believe that any product is not safe or has become unsafe, we would give the matter our urgent attention in the advice that we give to local authorities and others.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that Scotland has one of the lowest levels of energy efficiency in the domestic sector in the northern European countries? As more and more people are finding it difficult to pay their electricity bills when they are heating the outside environment as well as their homes, will he give increased urgency to the Government's programme alerting people to the grants that are available, increasing them, as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, and mounting a major campaign to improve the standard of energy efficiency?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's objectives. That is why we made a number of changes last year, which we hope will lead to a greater uptake. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are constrained by the sums that are requested by local authorities. We have allocated to local authorities the total amounts that they have sought. We hope that the changes that have already been made will lead to a greater uptake this year, and we shall be happy to look at any means of facilitating that process.

Grampian Region (Assisted Area Status)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish his comments on the report which has been prepared on the re-assessment of the assisted area status in the areas covered by the Grampian region.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: My right hon. Friend is presently considering the report which we commissioned from consultants on the performance and prospect of industries in areas affected by oil developments, including Grampian region. The report and the Government's conclusions on it will be published in due course.

Mr. McQuarrie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a further recent survey shows that there is considerable concern about the loss of employment in the old-established and indigenous industries in the Grampian area and that, in addition, there has been a direct loss of assisted area status? In considering the report, will he seriously consider the reinstatement of assisted area status, at least to the old-established and indigenous industries in the Grampian region, and particularly in my constituency of East Aberdeenshire?

Mr. Fletcher: I share my hon. Friend's concern for the economic health of the non-oil sector in Grampian. Although the prime purpose of the report is not related to the development area status of the region, it will nevertheless be useful to my right hon. Friend in coming to a decision about development area status there.

Mr. Myles: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in considering the report, to pay attention also to the indigenous industries in Banff, which have suffered considerably as a result of the activity of the oil-related industries?

Mr. Fletcher: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Electricity Disconnections (South of Scotland)

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of the large number of families in the South of Scotland whose electricity is disconnected, he will take special measures to help them.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The Government have already taken substantial steps to help with fuel cost hardship, mainly through the supplementary benefit and family income supplement schemes. The South of Scotland Electricity Board carries out disconnections in accordance with the gas and electricity industries' code of practice dealing with the payment and recovery of fuel debt. I understand from the board that there has been no significant increase in the number of disconnections in the year to 31 March 1981.

Mr. McKelvey: In view of that disgraceful reply, does not the Minister realise that, in the South of Scotland, about 1,200 homes were without electricity for the whole of 1980, and that, proportionately, that is the worst record for the whole of Great Britain? Does he not agree that the code of practice that is being operated by the South of Scotland Electricity Board is a complete failure, considering that it affects those families who are in a high priority category of need? Should he not introduce statutory limits to the powers of the Scottish boards so that these poor people may be protected?

Mr. Fletcher: The operation of the code of practice by the South of Scotland Electricity Board is monitored by the electricity consultative council for the South of Scotland district, and the consultative council is satisfied that the board's procedure and its application generally complies with the aims and spirit of the code of practice.

Mr. Henderson: I have on occasion criticised nationalised industries, but will my hon. Friend accept that, over the past two years, South of Scotland Electricity Board, in dealing with constituent's problems, has dealt sensitively with people who have had difficulty in paying


their bills? Will he assist the SSEB to make more widely known a number of schemes that it has to assist the people to pay their electricity bills?

Mr. Fletcher: We shall be happy to assist with publicity, if we can do so. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the House will bear it in mind that it is damaging to produce statistics and make false claims and criticisms about the way in which the board is undertaking this task, unless they can be properly substantiated. If any Members have evidence that the board is not behaving properly, I hope that they will direct such evidence, first, to the chairman and, secondly, to myself.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister seen the evidence in the excellent pamphlet produced by the Scottish Fuel Poverty Action Group called "Living in the Dark Ages", which catalogues the appalling hardship of poor families who have been disconnected? What action will he take on the recommendations contained in that pamphlet to end disconnections, to abolish warrant sales and, above all, to improve liaison for early action to deal with fuel debts?

Mr. Fletcher: The Government have increased substantially the funds available to help those who have difficulty paying their electricity bills.

Hospital Broadcasting Services

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask health boards to discuss with hospital broadcasting services in their health board area the difficulties they are facing as a result of the increase in the land line rental; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): The volunteer hospital broadcasters provide a valued service to patients and many boards already assist that work. They will, I am sure, be happy to discuss any problems which the hospital broadcasting services wish to raise with them. The determination of rental charges for land lines is, however, a matter for the Post Office.

Mr. Ewing: Is not the Minister aware that the hospital broadcasting services now face serious problems because of the decision to increase their land line rental by 50 per cent. each year until 1984? Against the background of an increase from £1,000 to £5,000 per annum, would it not be better and far more constructive if the Minister, through the health boards, came to an arrangement with such organisations as the Edinburgh hospital broadcasting service and Radio Royal in Falkirk to guarantee a specific income each year to meet the enormous increase in land line rental?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The charges have not been raised since 1975—

Mr. Ewing: That is because the Labour Government kept them down.

Mr. Fairgrieve: They were raised in 1980 because of inflation under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman is, once again, wrong. The suggestion is that over a four-year period the charges be increased by a factor of between two and five times, but never by more than 50 per cent. in one year. Last year, as a guarantee of income, we gave permission for the services to use advertising time if they so wished.

Mr. Myles: Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable enterprise of those who run the Buckie hospital broadcasting service and raise a large amount of money voluntarily to help themselves to a great extent?

Mr. Fairgrieve: Knowing who represents Buckie in Parliament, I am not the least bit surprised at the enterprise in that area.

Unemployment

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest figures of unemployed people in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: On 9 April seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 270,800–12 per cent. While I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the continuing high level of unemployment, I am encouraged by the fact that the rate of increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland has slowed down somewhat during the past three months and has been relatively less severe than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that in my constituency alone during the past two years an additional 3,571 people—about 89·25 per cent.—have been added to the unemployment register? Is that not all too sadly typical of what is happening in the rest of Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large proportion of those people are more than 45 years of age, and that they fear that unless something drastic is done they will never work again? Without eroding any of the other programmes, can the right hon. Gentleman do something to help that group who are thoroughly demoralised?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, both on the general point and for his constituency. The new scheme announced recently as a supplement to the youth opportunities programme, for the older unemployed, should help the group that he mentioned who are the longer-term unemployed. I know that he will be the first to agree that, having seen the position develop in his part of Scotland, the Government have given that area the highest priority in assistance for regional development. Many hundreds of millions of pounds have been pumped into the steel industry, in which many of his constituents work.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the attempt to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement at a time of world recession—as the Government are doing, and to which policy he is apparently committed because of his ministerial responsibilities—is having a deeply devastating effect on Scottish employment? Will he abandon that course? When he announces the number of new jobs created in Scotland, as he did last week—he said that 43,000 new jobs had been created since the Government took office—will he also tell us of the number of jobs lost?

Mr. Younger: I am interested to hear a piece of policy from the Social Democratic Party. That is extremely helpful. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contemplate what the opposite effect would be if we were to increase the public sector borrowing requirement at a time of


recession. How much would it add to the interest rates about which his constituents are complaining, with the backing of the Social Democratic Party?

Mr. Peter Fraser: In view of the attention that my right hon. Friend has paid to the problem of unemployment in Scotland, may I ask whether he has found evidence to suggest that we can afford the stunning complacency about the level of rates in Scotland and its effect on unemployment? Can he recollect one cheep from his opposite number on the Labour Benches when rates were increased, especially following the 150 per cent. increase that Dundee district council imposed on industry in parts of my constituency?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is overwhelming evidence that the excessively high levels of rates being imposed by irresponsible overspending authorities is threatening many thousands of jobs in small firms in those areas. I have not noticed the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) making any strong appeals to local authorities not to overspend. Perhaps I simply failed to notice.

Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that school leavers this year will face the worst employment prospects since the 1930s? Does he realise that there is complete demoralisation among large sections of youngsters? We are told that things will get better. When will they do so, and when will he hold out even a little hope to this year's school leavers?

Mr. Younger: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about school leavers. I am sure that he will acknowledge that we have increased the youth opportunities programme for that precise reason by no less than 80 per cent. Even if he wishes, as I do, that we could do more, at least he might acknowledge that we have made a fine contribution.

Mr. Sproat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be far better for Scotland if Opposition Members occasionally stopped moaning and started pointing to the many job opportunities coming to Scotland, especially in the oil industry? Does my right hon. Friend recall that only last year Shell UK predicted that during the next 15 years a further £60 billion would be spent developing North Sea oil? That is more than five times what has already been spent. Does not that mean massive new domestic market opportunities for Scottish jobs and products?

Mr. Younger: I share my hon. Friend's puzzlement at the attitude of the Opposition Party on this issue. Their contribution to a difficult position appears to be that we should withdraw from the European Community, thus threatening about one-third of the jobs in Scotland, abandon the defence commitment, which would instantly threaten about 30,000 Scottish jobs and, as if that were not enough, institute huge public spending programmes that would threaten the remaining jobs.

Mr. George Robertson: Has the Secretary of State read reports in today's press about the attack on his Government by the president and chairman of the North Lanarkshire Conservative and Unionist Association, both of whom have declined reselection as Conservative councillors as a five-point protest against Government policies? In the light of that and in the light of the Government's pathetic 15 per cent. support in the latest opinion poll, will even this stubborn Government

recognise that they are being condemned on all fronts and change their policies before they cause any more damage to Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I have not seen the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. However, I understand that the president and chairman reaffirmed their remaining loyalty to the Conservative Party. If I wish for any advice on how to deal with dissension within the party, I shall turn to the Labour Party, which is expert on such matters.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely sympathetic and concerned about the problems of growing unemployment, will he consider the Robb Caledon yard in Dundee, which no longer has any orders in hand and where 400 jobs are in danger? British Shipbuilders is apparently determined to close the yard. Will he intervene with Department of Industry Ministers and British Shipbuilders to bring new work to the yard?

Mr. Younger: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I, too, have been greatly concerned about the Robb Caledon yard. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that the Government have been extremely generous to the shipbuilding industry. It is for British Shipbuilders to decide which yards can continue and which cannot.

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities since he took office.

Mr. Rifkind: Eight, Sir.

Mr. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that COSLA and many councils throughout the country, including Conservative councils, feel that the meetings with the Secretary of State are a waste of time because he is not interested in what COSLA says? Special powers have been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and it is being seen that local democracy has virtually ceased to exist in Scotland? Does he appreciate that the mandate that he thinks he has does not operate in Scotland. Does he accept that councils have the job of resisting the policies of his Government, especially those that are attacks on jobs and living standards? Will he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very fair. The hon. Gentleman has asked three supplementary questions. The Minister is entitled to choose which he answers.

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that all democratically elected Governments have a mandate to carry out their policies. I think that he will find that the convention accepts that if it is necessary to take action against high-spending authorities it is better to concentrate that action on the authorities responsible than to direct it against all authorities, including those that have behaved responsibly.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend have an opportunity to discuss with COSLA the recent press release by the EIS on section 88 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980? Will he assure the convention that hon. Members do not react positively to threats of strike action, distortion and vulgar personal abuse?

Mr. Rifkind: It is correct that the House does not react favourably to protests and demonstrations, whether carried out by trade unionists or Labour Members of Parliament.

Housing Shortage

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for relieving the acute housing shortage in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: It is quite wrong to refer to an acute housing shortage in Scotland. On the most recent estimate, the number of houses exceeds the number of households by more than 150,000 and in the public sector alone there are an estimated 35,000 empty houses. There are, of course, some local shortages and the special needs of particular groups need attention. I expect housing authorities to concentrate their resources on these priorities.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 150,000 people on waiting lists throughout Scotland and that local authorities are currently building about 5,000 houses a year? Does he accept that the recent White Paper on public expenditure shows that the Government are intending to slash public expenditure on housing by 42 per cent.? That is the largest cut in any sector of the Scottish economy. Was the Prime Minster told about this "success story" before she made her rather stupid speech in Perth last weekend?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman uses, as so many others, the simplistic total of those on waiting lists and implies that all those on waiting lists are homeless or in grossly unsuitable housing conditions. He must be as aware as anyone that a large proportion of those on waiting lists merely wish to transfer to a house in another area or, for some other reason, would prefer to move house. Few local authorities would seek to suggest that the size of the waiting lists is equivalent to the degree of housing shortage in their areas.

Mr. David Steel: In turn, will the Minister avoid giving simplistic statistics to the House? Is he aware, for example, that in Roxburgh district there may be some empty houses but that that is no argument for doing what his Department has done—namely, to refuse consent to the SSHA to build a scheme at Kelso merely because there are empty houses at Hawick 18 miles away? Will he exercise some realism in housing in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: It is for the SSHA to decide how to use the resources that are available to it. I emphasised in my main answer that shortages remained in certain localities. It is wrong to suggest that there is an overall housing shortage in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in Scottish housing is lack of mobility? Further, does he agree that the Government's highly successful policy of selling council houses will ease the problem?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. The problem will be eased by not only the sale of council houses but the removal under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 of residential qualifications that are imposed by a number of local authorities. The latter provision has made an important contribution that has been recognised by both the CBI and the STUC.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that there is a shortage of houses in which people want to live and of a standard that it is right to ask them to live in? Does he appreciate that his remarks about the lack of a shortage of housing will be regarded as crassly insensitive in Scotland? Is he aware that new-build starts in the private sector in 1980 were the lowest since the war and in the public sector the lowest for over a decade? Is this not a record of which he should be thoroughly ashamed?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, I ask him to listen to the following words:
the overall housing shortage is virtually a thing of the past in most areas and the worst problems of overcrowding and bad conditions have been dealt with.
Those words appear on page 1 of the Green Paper on housing that was published by the previous Labour Government in 1977.

Planning (Consultations)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which non-elected bodies he consults in the exercise of his planning functions.

Mr. Younger: I consult a wide range of organisations, including a number of non-elected bodies, on different aspects of town and country planning matters. The main non-elected bodies consulted on a regular basis are the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and the Historic Buildings Council.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is a non-elected body.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the anger that has been caused in the Highlands by the Secretary of State's proposals for areas of scenic beauty, for implementation in less than a year? Why is he persistently and stubbornly refusing to accept the advice of the Highland regional council, the Western Isles Islands council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that these proposals are inapplicable in the Highlands and will inhibit the development that he and others wish?

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no reason why these arrangements should inhibit any development in the Highlands or anywhere else. These measures have already been brought into action in the rest of Scotland. As a special concession to the susceptibilities of the Highlands, I postponed their operation in that area for one year. The planning authority remains the decision-making body. If it can receive some extra advice from other bodies from time to time, surely that will be entirely to its advantage.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Western Isles Islands council shares the concern of the Highland region and COSLA about the possible interference of the Countryside Commission for Scotland in any future development? In an area in which unemployment is over 21 per cent. that is a serious consideration. Is he aware that Highland region and Western Isles councillors, being residents and natives of the area, have as much concern for the environment as the Countryside Commission?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Highland regional council.


However, I would have thought that not even the Highland regional council could be so perfect that it could not benefit from some advice from some other bodies such as the Countryside Commission for Scotland. If it is of any reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman, that scheme has been in operation in Argyll for some months. There is no sign of any difficulty.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in planning and development matters it is essential that there is an approach which balances the needs of the community, including creating jobs? Is he aware that, while I am no friend of quangos, I believe that the Countryside Commission has a role to play which should be carefully monitored?

Mr. Younger: I too have confidence in the Countryside Commission for Scotland and in the Highland regional council, and its planning authority. I am sure that they will do right in planning for the Highlands. However, none of them can be any the worse off for good advice from other bodies. I hope that they will accept that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one more hon. Member on this question and allow one minute extra at the end of questions at 3.30.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that a non-elected body, namely the South of Scotland Electricity Board, is causing planning blight at Chapeldonan near Girvan by reserving a large area of ground for a power station which will not be needed for at least the next 100 years? Will he instruct the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to meet the duly elected local authority which he knows well—the Kyle and Carrick district council—to discuss the planning blight which the action of the electricity board is causing in that area?

Mr. Younger: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's words are drawn to the attention of the chairman of the SSEB. I am sure that he will be prepared to discuss that matter with the planning authority, if it asks him to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Bail (Persons Reoffending)

Mr. Ancram: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions have been taken since the passing of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act against people reoffending while on bail; and what proportion that is of those on bail during this period.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I regret that no separate records are kept of persons who reoffend whilst on bail and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Ancram: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a matter of concern that his office has not seen fit to try to establish those figures, in the light of the concern which has been shown by people and the police about the effect of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act? Will he assure us that that will be rectified in the near future?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. A statistical survey covering 45 per cent. of sheriff court cases has been

carried out by the Scottish Office for the period from eight weeks before the Act came into force to a year thereafter. The Act came into force on 1 April last year. The Crown Office has also instructed that a survey be carried out over a three-week period in November to December 1980. I would have been able to give my hon. Friend the figures which he wanted but for the industrial action of the court staff.

Warrant Sales (Law Commission Report)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss its recent report on warrant sales.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans at present to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss its second memorandum on diligence, poindings and warrant sales.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland tell the Scottish Law Commission that there is bitter disappointment that, after a decade of deliberation, all it has managed to achieve are a few pussy-footed proposals? Will he compliment the print union SOGAT on taking direct trade union action to stop the shameful practice of advertising warrant sales? Will he consider adding his name to the list of sponsors of the Private Member's Bill which I hope to reintroduce on 3 June, which will stop that barbaric, medieval practice once and for all?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I note that the hon. Member used the words "barbaric and medieval practice". It amazes me that someone of his fluency cannot think up two alternative adjectives. He used those words on 20 February—

Mr. Canavan: That shows that I am consistent.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It shows that the hon. Member is consistent, but it also shows that he is boring. The hon. Member has introduced a Bill to control the employment of sheriff officers, presumably meaning that they should be unemployed. That seems contrary to his concept of the matter. I know that the hon. Member wishes to have a debt arbitration service, which would increase the burden of the State on those who pay. He favours a situation in which no one owns anything. Therefore, there would be no question of warrant sales. Nevertheless, all civilised systems have them, regretfully. There are only 300 in Scotland. It is a system on which the Law Commission has reported and which will be reviewed.

Mr. McQuarrie: I accept my hon. and learned Friend's reply to this question. Would not he further consider the situation in view of the degrading circumstances which people suffer? Is he aware that when sheriff officers arrive at many of the homes early in the morning the children are put in fear of their lives when the officers knock down the doors to take out the goods?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of such conduct, he should report it. That action is a last resort. There is no evidence that it is taken in circumstances which are wrong or unfortunate. I would have thought that my hon. Friend would remember that in those circumstances there are creditors as well as debtors to be considered.

Mr. Dempsey: If the Solicitor-General is unwilling to meet the Law Commission, will he at least draw its attention to the disgraceful practice by the sheriff officers in selling household effects at bargain basement prices, as if the debtors did not suffer enough? Will he insist that the Law Commission ensures that such goods are sold at market prices in future?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I always understood that the bargain price and the market price were the same. Let us be clear about the matter. The Scottish Law Commission has reported responsibly. The law of diligence and the law of warrant sales are bound up together. It is not a question of taking advantage of people. The circumstances of each of the 300 cases are available for any hon. Member to discover. If the hon. Member can demonstrate anything which is wrong about any case, he should bring it to my attention.

Mr. John MacKay: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that, while some of us accept that creditors have rights in such matters, some of us feel that warrant sales are a problem and that we should consider a more humane way Of dealing with that difficult social problem?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter of last resort. All that is possible is done to prevent any inhumane action being taken. If any hon. Members can bring to my attention a particular case in which they think injustice has been done, they should do so.

Mr. Millan: Is the Solicitor-General aware that there are umpteen cases of injustice being done? This is a degrading system. Even the Law Commission, which wished to retain the system as a last resort, said that it was urgently in need of substantial reform. Is the Solicitor-General saying that the Government will do nothing about the Law Commission report, which was the product of 10 years' study? The system must be reformed. That view is held 100 per cent. by people in Scotland. Something must be done.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have carefully read the vast report on the law of diligence which the Law Commission produced. It produced that report with great diligence, in another sense. Its comments on the law of warrant sales are being taken into consideration, but it would not be appropriate, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, to deal with that matter separately from the law of diligence.

Mr. Dempsey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Courts (Industrial Action)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many applications have been made by the Crown for the extension of the 110-day rule as a result of the industrial action in the courts.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Up to Friday 8 May 1981, the Crown has made 28 applications to the High Court for extensions of the 110-days as a result of the industrial action in the Scottish courts.

Mr. Dewar: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied in all conscience with the indications from his ministerial colleague that there was no need for emergency legislation to deal with the crisis in the administration of justice, given the sweeping condemnation which he made of the Labour Administration, whom, he said, should have legislated from day one of the 1979 strike? Is it satisfactory to shelter behind a discretionary power, granted in the recent Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1979, to deal with exceptions to the triennium in civil matters, and to ad hoc applications in individual cases of the 110-day and 40-day rule? Will he not accept that without emergency legislation there is no proper protection for individual rights?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We must consider what people term individual rights with care. It is a serious matter to extend the 110 days where no fault is attributable to the Crown, which the courts can do on the application of the Crown or the defence, if it so wishes, although in this case it is likely to be the Crown. To preserve the statutory protections of summary cases in emergency legislation, which I take it is what the hon. Gentleman means, is not protecting individual rights. It would be protecting the right of the Crown to prosecute in certain summary statutory cases.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is that not yet another context in which the use of the phrase "industrial action" is as misleading and meaningless as its objectives are often indefensible and disreputable? In the circumstances is it not far better to describe such action unequivocally as civil or judicial disruption? Does not even that phrase flatter the motives of those who put self-interest before civil justice?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My hon. Friend's words are apt. In Edinburgh and Glasgow the sheriff clerks have, and should know that they have, a duty to perform their statutory duties if they wish to hold and do justice to such a high office.

Mr. Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I intimate that I wish to seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply.

Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The arrogant management of British Leyland yesterday admitted further failure by announcing yet more closures, yet the Secretary of State for Industry has not seen fit to come to the House to make a statement. How are Back Benchers supposed to answer our constituents' many questions?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question except to say that Back Benchers can pursue their normal rights.
I have two applications under Standing Order No. 9, which I shall call in the order in which they were received.

British Leyland (Speke Factory)

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the latest British Leyland proposals and the way in which they may affect the BL factory at Speke".
There can be no doubt that this is a matter of extreme urgency. Judging from press reports and the briefing note issued to employees, BL's plans are already well advanced. I am anxious, therefore, that, before decisions that may be irrevocable are implemented their full implication and the considerable impact that they will have on employment in Speke are fully considered by the Government.
In an area already cruelly affected by major factory closures, with the loss of thousands of jobs, the loss of a further 1,100 jobs will be insupportable. The factory is not being closed because of poor performance or bad industrial relations. Indeed, Sir Michael Edwardes has stated that work will be directed towards plants that showed the commitment and had the track record to merit BL's support and confidence, and he accepted that the Speke factory fell into that category.
I entirely support the need to return BL to profitability and to ensure that our motor industry has a sound future. Tremendous amounts of public money are being allocated for the survival plans. Equally, very large sums, plus a package of measures for new opportunities, have been allocated by the Government to regenerate industry in the Speke area. It therefore seems entirely inconsistent that the chance for regrowth should be hampered by the erosion of a base upon which the future can be built.
In conclusion, I am asking for an opportunity to see whether BL management can direct new work towards the Speke factory, which has proved that it can do the job and deliver the goods. No amount of promises for the future or pats on the back for the past can compensate the workers at the plant if they lose their jobs. There are no prospects of alternative employment in the area in the near future. If this is not a matter of urgency and concern, I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the latest British Leyland proposals and the way in which they may affect the BL factory at Speke".
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an important matter. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the various factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. The matters that he raises are of considerable significance to his constituency and beyond, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The BL proposals affect a large number of constituencies, and many hon. Members would like to debate them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling. I believe that the next speaker, from another part of the country, wishes to deal with the same matter.

British Steel Corporation (Workington Ironworks)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Workington Ironworks, announced this morning by the British Steel Corporation, which was the subject of comment this morning by Mr. Ian MacGregor during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade".
The matter is specific, because the BSC is Workington's principal employer. The ferocity of the corporation's recent decisions are generating levels of unemployment that demand urgent and effective action by the Government. The Prime Minister's indifference and insensitive response at Question Time yesterday further reinforce the need for urgent debate.
The matter is important because, with the completion of the BSC redundancy programme—and this morning's announcement provides for a further 907 redundancies—unemployment in my travel-to-work area will have tripled in 24 months. The House will be aware of the long list of tragedies that have befallen my constituents in the past two years—the closure of BIP, Fisher Control, Bata Footwear, Courtaulds, K Shoes, Textured Fibres and the Distington foundry, and major redundancies at High Duty Alloys, Paul Green Spectacles, Condura Fabrics, Spillers Foods and Millers Footwear. The House must understand the personal tragedy for the community, cast adrift and now helpless before the ravages of industrial recession.
The matter is urgent. My constituents cry out for help. I beg the House to respond.

Mr. Speaker: Before I reply to the hon. Gentleman I must apologise to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). The application under Standing Order No. 9

made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not identical to the other application and does not involve British Leyland's proposals. However, I was aware that it involved redundancies.
The hon. Member for Workington gave me notice before 12 noon today that he might seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the closure of the Workington Ironworks, announced this morning by the British Steel Corporation, which was the subject of comment this morning by Mr. Ian MacGregor during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade.
As the House knows, when I receive applications under Standing Order No. 9 about closures in hon. Members' constituencies I always take them very seriously, as do hon. Members. However, the House will be aware that I do not decide whether this matter should be debated. I merely decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow night.
I listened with anxious care to the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but could we have some clear guidance? When it was announced that Shotton steelworks was to close, and that The Times was to close, debates were initiated under Standing Order No. 9. Hon. Members would like some guidance about the subjects that can be raised. Both of the matters raised today are important, particularly to the areas and workers involved. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have some written guidance on, or an understanding of, when and how we can raise matters.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. However, he will be aware that the House has given me instructions to the effect that I must give no reasons for my decision. I must obey the instructions of the House.

Minimum Housing Standards

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Health Act 1936 in relation to minimum housing standards.
The country is currently living off its camel's hump. Victorian sewers in the North fold up daily. Some Victorian housing is built to standards such that conscientious farmers would not put their livestock in it. The buildings are damp have leaking roofs, and lack inside sanitation. Homes are falling into chronic disrepair. In no way are we reinvesting in that camel's we are simply squandering the wealth created by our forefathers. Rather even than patch as best we can, we are bleeding our capital dry, like the worst sort of gambling and drunken landlords.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in our housing stock, where perfectly sound homes, which merely lack proper facilities, are being wilfully neglected. Decent people are being forced to live in worse conditions than cattle would be subjected to. Without reinvestment, the rampages of the bulldozer in the 1950's and 1960's will be as nothing compared to what will be necessary in the 1990's. There will need to be a swathe of destruction through our urban communities, and there is no guarantee that funds will be available to pay for it.
Meanwhile, skilled workers are lying idle, although simple things could be done to make our homes more habitable. Over 300,000 building workers are on the dole, yet nearly 1 million homes are still without inside sanitation. In the face of that, we find a passive acquiescence on the part of the Government. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members are in touch with reality and whether they understand the indignity of a mum having to bath her child in the kitchen sink, or the indignity of a sick old lady having to go out into the cold of the night to find some ramshackle and broken-down backyard toilet. That is the reality for thousands of my constituents and for people all over Britain.
My Bill seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to promote the National Home Improvement Council's proposal to make it a legal requirement under the Housing Act 1980 for all dwellings to have a hot water supply. At the same time, it seeks to update the Housing Act 1957 definition of "unfit" by including a full list of the standard amenities as set out in Department of the Environment circular No. 170/74, appendix B, paragraph 5. Dwellings should also conform to minimum standard requirements before allowing grant-aided improvements by private owners, as defined in Department of the Environment circular No. 160/74 and in paragraph 6 of circular No. 170/74, which defines the 10-point standard. Regrettably, the Housing Act 1980 was an opportunity lost, because it did nothing about these things.
My Bill would make it compulsory for every home to be provided with an inside toilet, bathroom and running hot water. The same 75 per cent. level of grant that is available in housing action areas should be available for this work. The Bill would also amend the Public Health Act 1936, to bring electrical wiring within its remit. For many of those who live in homes with decrepit and faulty electrical systems the choice is often between a cooker or a fridge, because their electrical system will not take both.

As for the Prime Minister's suggestion that people should buy deep freezers and purchase in bulk, it should be borne in mind not only that they cannot afford to buy large quantities of anything, but that to suggest that a deep freeze should be run on an antiquated electrical system is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Secondly, the Bill would amend the Public Health Act 1936 to enable the Public Health Inspectorate to enforce such minimum standards. The present levels of enforcement are more suited to Victorian workhouses than to modern twentieth century housing.
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to tackle the shocking conditions that exist in many council-owned properties that are infested by damp, mildew and fungus, and that lack ventiliation. Hon. Members must recognise that dampness is a national problem. Design, building materials, building methods, as well as lack of finance, are to blame. A recent study has shown that £200 million is needed to put right design and building defects in publicly owned dwellings in 60 local authorities. Over 8,000 council houses and flats have already been, or are being, considered for demolition because they were badly designed and built. Many of them were built in the 1950s and 1960s, despite warnings at the time.
In my city of Liverpool, a new lord mayor, Mr. Cyril Carr, is being installed today. It is ironic that in 1964 he had the foresight to speak out—a lone voice—against those virility symbols of the 1960s, which were erected all over Britain. Twenty years later we can see how right those warning voices were. Dampness is a major problem in blocks of both low- and high-rise flats. A number of studies have shown that infections of the upper respiratory tract, bronchitis and pneumonia are much more common among flat dwellers than among those who live in houses.
One study compared medical records of patients living in houses with those of patients living in three- and four-storey flats. For the families living in flats, first referrals to doctors were 57 per cent. greater than for those living in houses. The incidence of infections of the upper respiratory tract, bronchitis and pneumonia, was also greater in women aged between 20 and 29, in women over 40 years old and in children under 10 years of age. Living in unsatisfactory and inadequate housing often produces disease, which in turn lead to an increase in mental stress and to the increased use of tranquillisers and other drugs. The incidence of psycho-neurotic disorders amongst those living in flats is twice as great as it is amongst those living in houses.
The need to combat such conditions, particularly dampness, black mould, inadequate play facilities and loneliness, contributes additional mental stress to other social and economic problems, such as coping with unemployment, as well as hard and often low-paid jobs. In one survey of 17 families, all of whom had young children, five families suffered from a recognised medical or psychiatric condition, which was aggravated or maintained by their living accommodation. The remaining 12 families also showed symptoms of psychological upset, which directly resulted from their living conditions.
My Bill would make it compulsory for every local authority to establish specialist teams to tackle dampness, and as part of the annual housing investment programme aplication, to submit a design fault rectification programme.
There are three practical proposals in the Bill. First, it seeks to provide hot running water, inside toilets and


bathroom facilities, and decent electrical wiring in all homes. Secondly, greater enforcement powers will be provided for public health inspectors. Thirdly, the Bill will provide for measures to tackle the chronic dampness that plagues many council properties all over Britain.
One hundred years ago, Liverpool was a pioneer in tackling the urban squalor of the late nineteenth century. The courts and stinking hovels of Liverpool were decimated by cholera, typhoid and the results of insanitation. Liverpool led the way in providing public health facilities. It provided the first wash houses, the first Public Health Inspectorate, and Dr. Duncan—the first medical officer of health in Britain.
However, 100 years later it feels as if the clock is turning back. For many people, things have hardly changed in the austere surroundings of the back-to-back terraced houses. Only the ration coupons, the pea-soup fogs and fried fish and chips wrapped in the Daily Herald have disappeared. Their homes have not changed at all.
The Bill is a marker demonstrating concern for the dignity, well-being and self-respect of 1 million citizens caught in a time trap in homes that are no different today from what they were in pre-war days. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Alton, Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Russell Johnston and Mr. David Penhaligon.

MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS

Mr. David Alton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Public Health Act 1936 in relation to minimum housing standards: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed [Bill 139].

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 6

Reciprocity with other countries

'(1) In section 143 of the Social Security Act 1975 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications or adaptations, provide generally that this Act shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement or, as the case may be, alterations in question.

(2) In section 15 of the Child Benefit Act 1975 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications, provide generally that this A0 shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement or, as the case may be, alterations in question.".

(3) In section 32 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 (reciprocity with other countries) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1)—
(1A) An Order made by virtue of subsection (1) above may, instead of or in addition to making specific modifications, provide generally that this Act shall be modified to such extent. As may be required to give effect to the provisions contained in the agreement in question.".

(4) Any enactment mentioned in subsections (1) to (3) above and any enactment from which section 143 is derived (whether directly or indirectly) shall, in relation to any Order made or having effect as if made thereunder before the commencement of this section, be treated as if at the time when the Order was made that enactment contained the relevant power provided by this section'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As I have told the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) the clause is tabled as a result of a point raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in respect of the Social Security (Austria) Order 1981.
In the last few days the Committee has challenged a drafting convention that has been used since 1948 by successive Governments. I am advised that there is substance in that challenge, which we should not ignore. Hon. Members will be familiar with the background, which is, briefly, that nowadays so many people are migrant workers—that is, they spend their working lives in more than one country—that there is often a need to combine social security records and rights in more than one country.
That is done by treaties negotiated with other countries, usually referred to as reciprocal agreements on social security. Agreements have been made with 30 countries. They are given effect to by Orders in Council. The established practice is to provide that current social security legislation
shall be modified to such extent as may be required to give effect to the provisions


contained in the new agreement. That avoids the impossible task of identifying and scheduling each modification of our own extensive social security legislation that is required to apply to the cases covered by reciprocal agreements.
The agreements secure rights that would otherwise not exist. I understand that the Joint Committee has no qualms about the principle underlying traditional practice. However, as is its function, it questions the vires. My legal advice is that I should accept that the legal basis is and has been questionable. The new clause provides the necessary powers for the future and legitimises what has been done in the past.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased that the Government have tabled the new clause. It is a response to the representations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Committee expressed doubts about the authority of section 143 of the Social Security Act 1975 where it contemplates specific provision in an order. The Minister has responded and argued correctly that there should be primary legislative provision other than that.
I do not speak about the arrangements on behalf of the Committee. However, the provision of legislation such as this, in spite of its being valid in primary legislation, creates a difficulty. Future orders will have full and complete statutory authority, unlike the Socal Security (Austria) Order, and the user will have to consult two documents. He will have to consult both the order and the convention.
The instrument contains in a schedule the general terms of the convention, but the detailed changes to the primary legislation cannot be so scheduled. The user has to apply the detailed changes. How will the user obtain access to the information? He will have to buy a copy of the statutory instrument, which costs over £2, and he will also have to consult the convention. When an order refers to two documents, which are usually not available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the user is faced with additional costs.
I ask the Minister to examine the possibility of including the maximum information in the instrument that effects the changes. That is a slightly different question from the one that the Minister answered comprehensively, when she said that the new primary legislation would give full authority. One instrument would overcome the practical difficulties.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I do not oppose the new clause. I commend it to the House. However, the subject of reciprocal agreements comes before the House so rarely that I must take the opportunity to ask the Minister to consider whether provision of social security benefits under reciprocal agreements remains the most effective way of achieving the objective that we share.
I have received much correspondence over the years revealing massive discontent by British citizens settled abroad, not least because of the wide inequalities between countries. If I am a British old-age pensioner settled in Spain I have wide access to social service provision, whereas if I am settled in Portugal the provision to which I have access is comparatively small. If I am an old-age pensioner living in Canada, although the Canadian authorities are prepared to move toward reciprocal

agreement, for a variety of financial reasons that I understand, the British authorities are not prepared to move.
I hope that the Minister will turn her attention to the whole basis of reciprocal agreements and consider whether, because of the injustice that so many people feel, that method continues to be the only or best way of achieving justice for British people settled in many different parts of the world.

Mrs Chalker: I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. That Committee's work brought the problem to our notice. I accept that there are difficulties for the user in having both an order and a convention. However, the social security department of the country with which we have a reciprocal agreement usually has a working document that brings together the aspects of the order and the details of the convention, which are not contained in one document.
4 pm
We also have an extensive overseas department within the DHSS which can give advice. One of the problems that I might bring to the notice of the House—it concerns what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (M. McCrindle) said—is that very often pensioners who retire abroad do so without getting adequate advice or without asking for any advice before they contemplate this change. Successive Administrations have had some difficulty in bringing to the notice of pensioners or other people who go to work abroad the exact way in which the regulations work. I am always willing to re-examine the question of bringing information to the notice of potential claimants and to make sure that people are aware of their rights in this, as in many other ways, but to bring it together in a single document would probably make it inordinately expensive—the very point at which the hon. Member for Keighley was hinting.
Through the Department, and particularly through our overseas branch, we should do everything possible to advise persons who take up occupations abroad what they should do and what class of contributions they should pay to contribute towards their benefits in the long term, and shall give them advice, both in advance or during their absence abroad, but if they settle permanently in another country it is the responsibility of that country with whom we have a reciprocal agreement also to advise them of the way in which this will work out.
Turning to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I understand that many pensioners who have settled abroad are not happy if they fall into the category in which they cannot receive increases in pension claimed after they leave this country. He is very well aware of the very difficult on-cost that that would present, and of the fact that before people go abroad they know of this situation which has existed under Governments of both parties for a very long while. We aim in every case to give advice well in advance, and as the numbers of reciprocal agreements increase year by year we hope very much that the knowledge will also be more readily available to people who are employed by companies working both in this country and abroad.
In addition to the 30 agreements that already exist, I have recently signed an agreement with Mauritius, which is now awaiting ratification. Some of the agreements already considered—the hon. Gentleman referred to


Portugal—have been drawn up not just for the convenience of the British Government but for the convenience of the particular Government with whom we have the reciprocal agreement.
This clause is a step forward. We cannot do all the things that we would like to do but I hope that the Committee will accept it in good faith, because we wish to make sure that we are totally within the law and not in any way acting ultra vires.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

TAKE-UP OF BENEFITS

'At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection 1 he shall—

(a) cause to be published a report stating the numbers of persons who claimed each of the benefits covered by Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975 and supplementary benefit and his estimate of the numbers of persons in each case who, in his opinion, were eligible to claim the benefit concerned for the 12 month period up to and including the date of the last uprating, and
(b)make or cause to be made in each House of Parliament a statement of the actions which he is taking and propose to take to acquaint persons eligible to claim those benefits of their right to claim them and to encourage them to do so.'—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up. and read the First time.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
I refrained from participating in the earlier debate because we all want—where we are in agreement—to continue with the main matters of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to clear up that aspect of it which involves the making known of Social Security provisions. It is perhaps a good augury for the support that I may receive on the clause, which is also concerned with making known the provisions of the social security legislation.
The clause asks for two things: first, for a report to be prepared showing the number of people claiming particular benefits and the number of people actually eligible for them and secondly, where a gap is shown, for the Secretary of State to make a statement in each House of Parliament indicating the action that the Government propose to take in order to improve the level of uptake.
I suppose it is true to say that the level of benefits is one criterion by which we can judge a compassionate and caring society. If that is the case, it is quite clear that the level of take-up is another criterion. It is a scandal that successive Administrations have allowed for so long such a low percentage of take-up. It is a real index of our concern that attention should be paid to this matter.
The facts are grim. Six hundred thousand people who are entitled to one of our basic welfare benefits—the supplementary benefit—are apparently not drawing it. Out of an estimated 2¼ million people entitled to it, 1,670,000 people are receiving it. This figure, which works out at 73 per cent. of those entitled to benefit, is typical of the whole range of benefits. With the exception of child benefit, where there is an almost 100 per cent. take-up, no welfare benefit has a take-up of more than 80 per cent.
There may he a lesson to be learnt from that exception. In terms of the child benefit increase, or the one-parent family benefit—we will talk about the change of name in

a moment—the figure is one of the lowest, at 60 per cent. There is a take-up of supplementary pension of only 73 per cent., and the take-up of supplementary allowances is only 76 per cent. Only 4 per cent. of free welfare foods is taken up. This may be a reflection of pride in our society but if it is theirs by need and by right it should be taken up by those eligible.
Rent allowances are taken up by a little over half the people who are entitled to them. This is the level of take-up by people in the community who have been described as scroungers by elements in the Conservative Party—strange scroungers, when there is this level of take-up! One would have thought that the originator of the phrase that gave the Government party its whole drive and ethos in the last election should not be missing during this debate. If he is missing, and things are said about him, that is his own fault.
One of our problems is lack of information in this field. We are dealing with figures for 1977 and 1978, and we have attempted to extrapolate those into 1979. This is ludicrous. We are three or four years out of date, and the rest is a kind of working hypothesis. We should be concerned and should know about the level of take-up of a particular benefit. It may seem rather pointless to ask this Government to supply more information. It is like asking for the moon, especially when one sees the cuts in those bodies that should be providing such information in statistical and other ways. When we look at the proposals in the Rayner report we realise that that may be too much to ask. Perhaps the Government feel that if we do not measure the problem it will go away. We need to know it for a number of reasons, because there is a need to encourage take-up.
Two facts stand out. One is that the level of take-up is far too low in the case of a number of major benefits. Secondly, people who are not receiving benefits are precisely and by definition those who are most clearly in need of them. That is the reason for our concern. The numbers involved are staggeringly high. It is not as if the level of benefits taken up by many people are high. In fact, they are too low. Some surveys have been done on this. Some attempts have been made, not merely restricted to surveys, to take specific action about it in lieu of the Government's failure to take action—for example, in Strathclyde.
Some of the small surveys done by people in this field make very interesting reading. The Disability Alliance, for example, in North Yorkshire—admittedly, the numbers involved are low—examined a number of people who were suffering from disabilities. The alliance calculated that at 1979 benefit rates an average of £800 per person of those in the survey had gone unclaimed. These were all people who suffered from disabilities and were entitled. Therefore, the survey was partial to that extent. The alliance was dealing with people who were not an average sector of the community. However, it was found that when interviewed at the start of the project, only three out of 23 disabled people investigated were already receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. The remaining 20 were, between them, failing to receive a total of 51 benefits for which they appeared to be eligible.
I am not putting too much stress upon this matter. We are dealing with small numbers. I find the £800 to which I have referred to be a high figure. But there is no doubt, from the result of this survey, that things are not going very happily in that field of disablement.
Another survey was carried out by the Chapeltown citizens bureau, which covered 39 of what it claimed to be randomly selected households of disabled housebound people. About a third of the sample of unclaimed benefit was on attendance allowance. About 15 per cent. were not claiming supplementary benefit—which we would see as one of the linchpins of the Welfare State. Only with the help of the citizens advice bureaux locally did some of them receive extra weekly benefits to which they were entitled.
Even on a small sample such as this, and even with all the errors that small samples can produce, there is clearly a major need among those who are most affected.
One would have thought that the Government would be interested and involved in this situation. There have been enough complaints. My hon. Friends and others have asked questions about this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has done so. On 3 February this year he had a reply from the Under-Secretary. She is my favourite social security Minister. We may get more from her than from the rest; we shall see.
The hon. Lady was asked what the Government were doing about this matter. She said that they were concerned. For example, she said that
the take-up of child benefit increase … is disappointing.
Therefore, we had an announcement on 22 January that 
the name child benefit increase will be changed to one-parent benefit.
That was the Government's biggest contribution to take-up—to change the name.
I accept that this is a useful change. However, what we want to see this backed up by is the expenditure of money. When we approve of this change as a means of help, we then require money so that we can publicise it. But what does the Minister say? She says:
With regard to benefits in general, the Department's publicity budget for 1981–82 is not yet finalised, so it is not possible to give any firm commitments."—[Official Report, 3 February 1981; Vol. 997, c. 83.] We may get some firm commitments today on this matter—that the Government propose to use the national press, television and so on; but none of it with a firm budget.
This is not good enough. We have plenty of words. The amounts are very little. There is no commitment, but the Government say that a special effort will be made on particular sectors such as family income supplement—and that is good; only about 90,000 to 100,000 people are affected.
The hon. Lady also tells us—this is a very interesting point which has been raised with me by old-age pensioners—that, after all, information is available, and that if one looks at the last six or eight pages of the pension order book, one gets a lot of closely written information about various benefits for which people should apply. That does not get anywhere near the problem. We know the problem involved. We know the difficulties that people have in understanding some of our forms or information, let alone tacking it along the back of a book, with all the official imprimatur that that entails and the difficulties that causes. I know of no one who has told me that he has gone to a social security office to seek out a benefit because he has read about it in his pension book. I would be interested to know if any other hon. Member present has encountered anyone who has done that. Clearly, therefore, that is insufficient.
4.15 pm
It is a curious fact that this meanness of behaviour on that matter bears a startling contrast to the other aspects of this field. A special effort has been made to reduce the number of scroungers. On this matter, we have the astonishing phenomenon that the Government are restricting public expenditure and are boasting every time they see a reduction in public service staff that the one field—there are two fields, actually, and we shall look at the other one shortly—in which they are expanding is in employing more people for fraud squad investigation.
This, not unnaturally, has not only angered me—that is unimportant—but it has angered the Civil Service unions involved in it. They see that the focus of the Government's efforts in these matters is only in the field of scrounging, and not in the field of improvement of take-up of benefits. These two things contrast starkly.
I welcome the present Minister of State; we had a short acquaintance back in February, and then we had a slight hiatus for various reasons. I am grateful for the reciprocal welcome today. Reciprocity seems to be in the air.
The former Minister for Social Security—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice)—has said that any campaign undertaken—in parallel with the campaign to try to create a concept of scroungers—to increase the level of take-up, was as nothing as compared with the value that would come from a strong campaign on scroungers. He said that such a campaign would create
a better atmosphere in which people will not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlemant".
I have never seen such a perverse creation of the opposite of the truth.
The truth is that the scroungers campaign, far from creating a climate in which people would not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlement, created precisely the opposite. Those of us who are in direct contact with people in need know that the attacks on scroungers in the campaign inhibited large numbers of people from applying. Looking at the book "Disability Rights—Who Benefits" by the Disability Alliance, one sees that the alliance found precisely that. In its project, it found that some people refused to apply for benefits to which they seemed entitled. Although they were getting advice and encouragement on what to do from welfare officers, Members of Parliament and others, they were frightened that their relatives, doctors, social workers and the officials at the Department of Health and Social Security would think that they were scrounging.
As opposed to that kind of atmosphere, the insertion of seven or eight pages of information at the end of a pension book counts for nothing. The confidence that is sapped in that way is what we have to restore.
The authors of this report from North Yorkshire say:
Press reports that the Prime Minister is jubilant about new allegations of widespread fraud illustrate the Government's cruel disregard for the hardship caused to people with disabilities who fail to claim their entitlement.
Those are bitter words indeed.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is the hon. Gentleman weighing his words very carefully? I think that the impression that he is giving to the House is that at very least, he is condoning fraud and, at very worst, encouraging it.

Mr. Buchan: I was intending to deal with that matter shortly, but that is a gross travesty of anything that I have said. What I am saying is that when a Minister of State


says that the best means of improving take-up is a better atmosphere, in which people will not be inhibited from claiming their genuine entitlement, and then launched a campaign of indiscriminate accusations of scrounging against people in need, that is a dangerous step. Neither does it help on the question of finding out about fraud. The really fraudulent person is not worried about statements of that kind. The people who are worried about them are the innocents, who will be afraid that they will be accused of it. The person who is really fraudulent—the street-corner Vestey—knows how to get around matters.
That is not the way of dealing with the problem. The Government have produced an indiscriminate apparatus of investigation with their forms of questioning and their advice to officials—for example, that if they find a man who is in the wrong but who is so mentally handicapped that a court of law may take a more sympathetic view of his situation than the Department, they should not prosecute.
There is a denial of justice. They are not saying "Do not prosecute in the interests of justice;" they are not saying "Do not prosecute in the interests of compassion;" they are saying "Do not prosecute e in case a court of law takes a more compassionate view of the man than does the Department of Health and Social Security". That is a sad indictment of the Department. That is the charge that we are making. Of course we are opposed to fraud, but we say that fraud is a minor element compared with the great loss of benefits for people in need.
I am also going to show that it is a minor element as opposed to the massive loss in other matters. I will give the figures. I take the Department's view on it when, a week ago, the Secretary of State said, amid great rejoicing, that we had saved £40 million by the fraud squad investigation of social security. I do not know how they balance that out. That means that people approached have withdrawn their claims in general.
It does not prove that they should have withdrawn their claims, so I do not know about that figure. But even if we grant that figure of £40 million there is 10 times more than that lost in supplementary benefits alone by the failure to apply the same concentration of effort on take-up. There is 100 times more lost—£4,000 million—by the failure of the same Government to investigate tax avoidance and tax evasion. They can deal with the street corner Vesteys, but the real Vesteys are left untrammelled. That is the accusation that we are making. We ask for the same vigour of action, in a better cause, as they have shown on this terrible Fraud Squad eruption over the last two years.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The Vestey point is a bit of a canard, because the hon. Member knows that the Government have taken action to stop that particular matter. On the fraud campaign generally, I know that there are two different ways of looking at this but I wonder whether the hon. Member would consider that there is a great feeling in the country that there are people who have skills, such as decorators, mechanics, and so on, who are working privately and do not declare their income but are drawing benefit at the same time.
It is because that is known that genuine people are deterred from putting in claims for their benefit, because they do not want to be associated in the public mind—in the neighbours' minds—with that kind of activity. I should have thought that if we take steps to make sure that the

dishonest are brought to book, the innocent know that they can hold their heads up and not be ashamed when they make the claims to which they are properly entitled. That is what we are seeking to do through our campaign.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know what that is based on. It is totally unrelated to any evidence that we have through our direct experience with these people. I have never encountered one who said "I shall not claim the supplementary benefit, or invalidity allowance, disability allowance, or child benefit, because there is somebody down the street who is doing a spare job as a painter while he is claiming his benefit." I have never heard anyone say that. But I have heard of plenty of people who were inhibited from claiming for other reasons. I will not name one, but I had to spend several months trying to convince someone who is very close to me that she should be going down to draw a benefit to which she was entitled. I have not heard her mentioning a painter down the road who draws benefit. This is a lot of nonsense.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Following the Minister's intervention to tell us all about these decorators who have been claiming benefits, perhaps my hon. Friend could press the Minister to tell us how much of the £40 million has been reclaimed from decorators.

Mr. Buchan: He will not tell us how much of that has been reclaimed. I am astonished at the reaction to this. This was a passing reference, which seems to have erupted and seems to upset the Conservative Party. The Conservatives cannot get away from the thoughts of punishment. Take-up they can leave alone. That is only a benefit to people. But they are absorbed with punishment and the fraud squad.
We accept that there is a problem arising from what the Minister calls the black economy. We are not disputing this. The main way of reducing that amount, if there is any fraud going on in relation to a black economy, is by reducing the level of unemployment. When we have 2½ to 3 million unemployed, when we expand it, the amount of fraud of that kind is bound to increase. We all know that. The quickest way to reduce any amount of fraud spent on social security is to reduce the level of unemployment.
The second is that the Vestey matter took a long time to solve and the chairman of the Tory Party, Lord Thorneycroft, seemed to say, "He is 'doing' the country—good luck to him."

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that when he was putting forward the case for an increased take-up the Members of the Conservative Party, including the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who purports to be concerned in these matters, immediately leapt to the smear campaign argument, that somehow, when we raise the question of take-up, we are supposed to be encouraging fraud? Will he remember that when, in the late 1970s, the same sort of smear campaign was mounted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, East, with the assiduous persistence of The Sun, a national campaign produced 750 rumours and tittle-tattle items about people who were alleged to be committing fraud? Of those, around 24 had some substance, and of those roughly half were already being investigated. That is the sort of basis that the Conservatives have for their allegations against the Opposition.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Member means the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sprout), not Aberdeen, East, but he is quite right. The statistics on this whole basis of the scrounger question did not stand up to the light of day. They were a minimal amount, as we all know. To be fair to the hon. Member for Kemptown, he was attacking me not on what I was saying about take-up—I regard him as an ally; please do not let me lose him as an ally—he was attacking me because he considered that I was exonerating fraud. Of course I regret fraud in whatever field.

Sir Frederick Burden: I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Buchan: There is no need to hear that. We know this from the beginning. One would have thought that if the Government were applying this kind of effort to an omission, or a loophole in their structures, they would have given the same concentration of interest to the other major loophole—the failure of people to get everything to which they are entitled. Far from doing that, when people try to assist others to obtain their entitlement the Government become angry.
The most interesting example of people attempting to improve the take-up of people actively saying to the community "Are you entitled to such-and-such a benefit?. If so, you should claim it," was that which happened in Strathclyde. To beat the gate coming down on 24 November with the change of regulations, Strathclyde notified the community as widely as they could as to their entitlements. That should have been done by the Government. It was done by Strathclyde. It was a very interesting event. Starthclyde sent out about 10,000 postcards to people. They have now had a analysis of some of the results. They took a much bigger sample than the North Yorkshire sample, a sample of 500 claims.
I must stress that the references here are to people who are receiving benefits now which they were not receiving before but that they should have received before and most of the people involved are those who are desperately in need. Of that sample of 500 claimants, on the basis of the 100,000 postcards sent out, a number of claims came forward. Of the claims coming forward, 500 were examined. These were claims that we were failing to give people their entitlement. A total of 378 were awarded exceptional needs payments. They were the poorest of the poor. Weekly increases in benefit, either in addition to an existing payment of supplementary benefit or as a new claim, were awarded to 62 people. They were people who were not receiving enough benefit, and those payments were needed to get them on to the subsistence level of supplementary benefit. The average weekly increase in benefit was £5. For years these people had been getting £5 less than they needed; they had been living below the bone.

Sir Frederick Burden: When did that survey take place? Does the hon. Gentleman say that there were no people in similar circumstances when the Labour Government were in power?

Mr. Buchan: This survey took place in November last year. I said at the beginning of my speech that this was a scandal of successive Governments. It is the Tories who are trying to make party points out of this. We are dealing with the needs of the community.
When efforts such as the Strathclyde survey have shown the size of the problem, we should say "Thank you for telling us; now let us get on with it". The problem was considerable. Comparing September to December 1979 with the corresponding period in 1980, there was an estimated increase of about 83 per cent. in payments in Strathclyde.

Mrs. Chalker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is only fair to the House to make clear that the figures he has been quoting are connected with the exceptional needs payments and the once-off payments. This blanket campaign produced fewer regular weekly payments. In this widely flung postcard campaign a number of once-off benefits were claimed, but the ongoing weekly entitlement payments were nothing like so many as the once-off benefits. I will answer the point more fully when I wind up the debate.

Mr. Buchan: It was a campaign for one-off benefits connected with the change of date. But it is not true to say that no full-time benefits were shown to be needed. On the contrary, 62 people were awarded a weekly increase in benefits. Of the 500 sample, 62 people received an increase in weekly benefit, that is, 12 per cent. The global figure for the one-off payments is £2·75 million—the Minister is dealing with that. The total for the weekly increases could be £1·3 million per year. That is a considerable sum. We have been talking about fraud and £40 million, but if as a result of that one exercise there is a £1·3 million increase in weekly payments, by repeating that exercise in a comparable population throughout Britain more than £40 million can result.
It is nonsense to say that the survey did not pay off. In direct cash terms, it paid for itself, and more. It brought to many of the most needy in Strathclyde single payments. That is good. Single payments are important to destitute people. It also brought weekly payments.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I do not think that the Minister is right in putting this down to one-off payments. There have been other surveys. There was a small survey in Harlow which showed that many people were entitled to benefits varying between £1 and £6 per week. That is not a one-off payment; that is weekly benefit. As a result of that small survey, £15,000 per year has been claimed which would not have been claimed had it not been for the survey. That is far from one-off payments, and it is far from the minuscule amount that Ministers are trying to say it is.

Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Strathclyde figures prove it, and other surveys have done the same.
Given that kind of assistance from a local authority, the Government should have praised the local authority and said "Good, you are helping us in the battle against poverty". But that did not happen. The leader of the Sheffield district council and chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' social services committee, Mr. Blunkett, wrote to the Minister saying "This sounds good. What about a bit of encouragement for us to do the same?" The Minister sends a letter in which she says:
The…Strathclyde postcard drop made few bones about its being a political exercise".


From that exercise, £2·5 million went to people in need, yet the Minister said it was a political exercise. It was not. It was a necessary social exercise to do the job and prove the need. The Minister goes on to say:
I objected to this crude exercise".
She objected to what? Did she object to the 378 single payments to people in need? Did she object to the fact that 12 per cent. of the 500 and therefore of the 100,000 required weekly benefits? Did she object to the fact that about £3 million came into a Scottish community which had been made destitute by the Government's employment policies? What does she object to? I thought that she represented the Department of Health and Social Security, not the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions—that is what it is becoming—and she is the best of our Ministers. She went on to say:
It also seems unbelievable to me that the people who do not take up their entitlement for reasons which, as I have indicated are quite complex, will be encouraged to apply for their rights by such a campaign".
She is saying that we should not support the campaign because people would not respond to it, but they did respond to it. About 30,000 postcards were returned out of the 100,000 which were sent out.

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise for interrupting again, but I want to get the record straight while the hon. Gentleman is going on in this fashion. I was objecting to the blanket campaign. There is no way in which I or any of my colleague Ministers would wish to discourage people from taking up what is rightfully theirs. What went wrong in Strathclyde was that the 100,000 postcards and various leaflets that went out at the same time so flooded local offices in the last few weeks before the change to the new scheme, which had been approved by the House, that many claims made by people who had just as genuine a claim were delayed.
I shall never put my mind against any genuine and well targeted campaign for take-up, but the Strathclyde campaign raised so many expectations. From the 100,000 postcards distributed, 340 weekly claimants resulted. I am glad that they resulted. As a result, as will be seen from the letter I wrote on 9 February 1981 to the hon. member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Stallard), out of the 100,000, 340 people received regular weekly payments. Sixty-two out of 500 is 1·2 per cent., not 12 per cent. as the hon. Gentleman said. Apart from the mathematics of the issue, there is a problem—

Mr. Buchanan: Sixty-two out of 500 is 12 per cent.

Mrs. Chalker: If we are to have success, it behoves everyone to have carefully targeted campaigns, not wide campaigns of this nature.

Mr. Buchanan: I would have taken the lecture better if the Minister had not thought that 62 out of 500 was 1·2 per cent. She is wrong by a factor of 10. I do not know what is taught at Roedean. Thank heaven we teach better in comprehensive schools. However, I thank her and I shall cherish that. She objects that it cruelly raised false expectations. We have to weigh the raising of false expectations against the hundreds of thousands who should be receiving benefits but are not. The raising of a false expectation can easily be overcome by a simple sentence in a card or leaflet. Indeed, that was said in the process.
The Minister was wrong in almost every aspect. She should not take the right hon. Member for Daventry as a

good example. The right hon. Gentleman is a thoroughly bad example. He was a bad example when he sat on this side of the House and he was an even worse example when he changed sides. The hon. Lady should not do it. She is much better than that.
In conclusion, I make a rapid comparison of the numbers employed in the fraud squad and those employed in other directions. Another element in scrounging concerns low wages under the rates laid down by law under the wages councils. On 12 January my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) elicited that the underpayment of wages under this legislation, including holiday pay, was found in 10,969 establishments in 1979. Those firms were paying against the law and below the law with only 270 civil servants employed to deal with it.
This week the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us that to deal with taxation of unemployment benefit he intended to employ an additional 3,500 civil servants. That is a measure of the Government's priorities. Ten thousand firms paying low wages and breaking the law can be ignored with just 270 civil servants to deal with it. I believe that some were sacked in the process as one of the Rayner savings. The Government now intend to employ 3,500 people to tax unemployment benefits. That is the measure of this tawdry, paltry Government. The hon. Lady should speak out more clearly. We shall back her if she does.
The Strathclyde exercise, with all its difficulties and problems, succeeded in setting an example. If the Government do not intend to do their duty by using new methods and new forms of publicity to increase the take-up in our community at a time of expanding unemployment, and do not take seriously their responsibility to counteract the scrounger mentality of so many of their supporters, others must do so. Councils throughout England, Wales and Scotland—we have many good councils now after last week's elections—should repair the Government's omission and launch similar campaigns. After last week's victories, we must ensure that the Government do their job. These local councils must become the bastions of help and caring in the middle of this brutish and nasty Tory world.

Mr. Bowden: I first thank the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) for his honest and genuine interpretation of my intervention. He saw my point and dealt with it fairly and reasonably.
In complete contrast was the intervention by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) who deliberately misrepresented what I said. He loves the use of the word "smear". He is an expert at the half-truth and the smear. His political behaviour since he was elected has been of the lowest possible standard. He invariably enjoys calling his political opponents—be they the Labour Right or Conservative Members—callous and uncaring.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Withdraw.

Mr. Bowden: I have no intention of withdrawing put that on record, because the House knows what kind of man the hon. Member for Keighley is and treats him with the contempt that he deservea.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is in a different category.

Mr. Andrew F. Benett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attack the Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I am not aware that the Chairman of a Select Committee is any more likely than anyone else to be immune.

Mr. Bowden: Certainly not from my attacks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
I was pleased that two-thirds of the way through his speech, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West was categorical and definite in condemning fraud. I wish that he had done it earlier rather than under prodding from myself and the Minister. I want to put on record my condemnation of all types of fraud, be it tax fraud, anything that evades the law of the land or social security fraud.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West developed his argument from the angle that, because the Government were proceeding strongly against those attempting to defraud the system, people would not claim their benefits. My experience in my constituency is the opposite. Cases have been brought to me where in certain areas it has been believed—sometimes wrongly—that a person or a number of people are claiming from social security benefit money to which they are not entitled. That has directly led to some, especially the elderly, being afraid to ask for their benefits to be checked to discover what their entitlements are. They are frightened that they may be regarded as attempting to swing a fraud or a swindle. There are two sides to the coin.

Mr. Reg Race: That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said.

Mr. Bowden: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech tomorrow, he will see that his hon. Friend said the opposite. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) should listen to the debate.
When we are strongly against fraud and when action is taken and people know that they are receiving their genuine entitlements, that will encourage others to act in the same way.

Mr. Stallard: Is not the hon. Gentleman's experience that the campaign and the concentration on scroungers is being counter-productive to the extent that it frightens people away from claiming their legitimate rights? They are afraid of being tarred with the scrounger and fraud brush, so they do not claim. It is the campaign that is frightening people.

Mr. Bowden: No, it is the other way around. That is the major deterrent. We should not be mealy-mouthed about it. We use the word "scrounger" as though it was a misdemeanour or just on the border, but fraud is a criminal offence. Those who engage in fraud, be it tax or social security fraud, are swindling people of their money. The actions of those who take the line of the hon. Member for Keighley are encouraging crime. Unless we stamp on it hard, we shall influence the actions and approaches of honest people.
I am as deeply concerned as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West about the fact that 600,000 pensioners do not claim the supplementary pensions to which they are

entitled. That is a frightening national figure. With 23,000 people of retirement age in my constituency, my estimate—it must be an estimate—based on personal experience is that at least 2,000 pensioners in Kemptown are not claiming the supplementary pensions to which they are entitled. In Brighton as a whole, the figure is at least 3,000.
What is behind those figures? They conceal a great deal of personal hardship and suffering. There are many reasons for this. We have discussed the question of fraud, and I shall not return to it. However, there is mistaken pride—the belief that if one claims a supplementary pension one is asking for charity. I believe that Members of Parliament and organisations concerned with the elderly and with those in receipt of benefits must kill that mistaken belief as quickly as possible. It is not charity; it is a right.
Another reason is the spirit of independence. Many elderly people still feel that if they claim supplementary benefit they will sacrifice or jeopardise their independence. Everything possible must be done to persuade such people that there is no question of their sacrificing their independence. It is their right to have this money if they are entitled to claim for a supplementary pension.

Mr. Clement Freud: If there is so high an incidence of non-take-up of benefits in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, what is he doing to make people aware of the existence of available benefits?

Mr. Bowden: I am delighted to answer that question. In the 11 years that it has been my privilege to represent Kemptown I have emphasised time and time again through my local press and Radio Brighton the rights of people and the importance of making sure that they check them.

Mr. Freud: What are the numbers involved?

Mr. Bowden: On average, I see 30 to 40 people in my constituency advice service each time I hold it. I get between 30 and 40 letters every day. I cannot remember any week in which I have not had one or two letters about benefits, and the follow-through has often shown that people were entitled to more. It is exceptional not to have someone come and talk to me about rights and benefits at my constituency advice service.
I am proud to be vice-president of Age Concern in Brighton. I work closely with that organisation and with other organisations concerned with the elderly and those in receipt of a wide range of benefits. I use every means available to me to emphasise time and again that people have the right to check their entitlements. People should approach their Members of Parliament and local councils. I am sure that Ministers would be delighted if people went to their local DHSS offices and asked "Will you check my entitlements? Is there anything that I am not getting to which I am entitled?" We, as Members, have a part to play in that process.

Mr. David Ennals: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to the remarkable initiative of a local authority in Strathclyde taking upon itself the responsibility of bringing to the attention of the electorate what their rights were. Does the hon. Gentleman want something like that done in Brighton—indeed, right across the country—contrary to his hon. Friend who, for some extraordinary reason, condemned the initiative taken in Strathclyde?

Mr. Bowden: Any campaign must be carefully coordinated. It will be more effective if it is a national campaign involving the Government, political parties, county councils, social services departments, councillors and Members of Parliament. In too many instances such campaigns have been undertaken on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Bowden: I can deal with only one intervention at a time. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I should like to finish this point in reply to the last intervention. If we do not think this through carefully, the danger is that it will not get the right degree of national coverage. If people see something on a regular basis in a national context, the ground will be laid for making the best of local campaigns. Whatever campaign is organised—every possibility should be carefully examined—must be a carefully co-ordinated and continuing national campaign. The individual one-off local campaign does not necessarily achieve the right objective.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in more detail the kind of campaign about which he is talking?

Mr. Bowden: We shall listen with interest to the reply from the Front Bench, but all of us have a part to play, because we get publicity in this context as national Westminster Members. If we are supported by elected colleagues of all political parties and by opinion locally, that can only be a move in the direction that we want to go.
I believe that substantial progress has been made not only in Brighton, but nationally during the past few years. That has been due largely to local and voluntary organisations, citizens' advice bureaux and voluntary service centres which, in their sustained campaigns and work, have carried out an invaluable job in this area. We naw need a carefully planned and co-ordinated national campaign.
I believe that local DHSS offices—I appreciate the difficulties facing them—could do more than they are doing. There are problems at present because of the Civil Service dispute, but offices and officials of the DHSS locally must continually be on the watch to ensure that those who are in receipt of benefits are getting their full entitlements and that those who are not getting them do get them.
I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will give careful consideration to the new clause. If they feel that they cannot accept it as it stands, I hope that they will suggest a positive alternative.
Paragraph (b) would ensure that the situation is brought to the notice of Parliament on a regular annual basis. That can only be good in building up the national picture that we wish to present of ensuring that all people apply for their entitlements. Publicity and public awareness are important weapons in this battle.
Society owes an obligation to the elderly. We must ensure that they receive their full entitlements. Appendix 1 to the White Paper "Growing Older" lists the State benefits and grants for which elderly people may be eligible.
In conclusion I shall quote from the White Paper. It says:
To enable people to enjoy secure, dignified and fulfilled lives in their later years is a large and ambitious objective … there is no doubt that society can do more for its elderly members".

In my opinion, the new clause could help.

5 pm

Mr. Stallard: I want, first, to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). During the Committee and Second Reading stages of the Bill Labour Members argued against the Government's attempts to abolish the annual reports and statistical reports of many organisations concerned with occupational pensions, war pensions and some statistical evidence that is necessary for voluntary organisations to keep in touch with developments. So we join the hon. Gentleman in his plea. We are pleased that the offending clause has been withdrawn, at any rate for the time being, and we join the hon. Gentleman in his appeal to the Government to look favourably on new clause 1, which asks for more information. Information is needed. We can then disseminate it to local voluntary organisations which will then be able to identify problems, where they exist.
The hon. Member for Kemptown also mentioned the citizens' advice bureaux and the DHSS. Many of us have had letters from local citizens' advice bureaux which are in severe financial straits as a result of the Government's economic policy. Their finances are being dramatically cut and they are finding it difficult to carry on with their task of providing people with information on statistics and the lack of take-up.
The DHSS also was mentioned. The people who are entitled to benefits find that the local DHSS office now cannot monitor or pay the moneys to which those people are entitled because of staff cuts and financial restrictions. We all know about the sterling work done by the hon. Member for Kemptown on behalf of pensioners. He rightly spoke of their independence and their present plight. I agree with him. They are among the most Vulnerable people in society. They are the people to whom most of the benefits apply, and yet they are often the least able and most ill-informed about the benefits to which they are entitled.
I accept that the Labour Government did not implement a similar scheme, but I do not apologise for that. We asked for a scheme at that time, as now, and we hope that we shall be given a commitment that if this Government do not bring in a scheme the next Labour Government will. There should be a Government responsibility and the Government should be seen to be taking their responsibility seriously by local and regional, organisations.
The Government should not say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said in opening, that they deplore the fact that people are now finding out about these moneys. The Minister seemed to imply that she was sorry that people were now claiming these moneys and that she did not want the moneys to be paid. We shall not get far if that is her attitude. That is typical of the Government Front Bench attitude, but we hope to change that approach of one of the most hard-line and uncompassionate Governments that we have had for many a day.
I represent a part of Camden, that is one of the alleged profligate spending councils. I am glad that that is so, because it spends money on finding out about the benefits to which people are entitled, monitoring the effect of benefits on the people who are vulnerable, and supplying


services to the people who need those services most. We shall continue to support that council in its attempts to uphold those principles.
I know from my experience of the area that the older pensioners, people over 70, will apply for rent and rate rebates if they are pushed. They have to be pushed. They have to be convinced that it is not charity but something to which they are entitled. They have to be convinced that it is the law of the land and that they are not doing anything wrong. They have to be persuaded, though I have seldom persuaded them that they ought to apply for supplementary benefit. People of that age find it difficult to accept that supplementary benefit is something to which they are entitled.
We know, therefore, that there are hundreds of people who are entitled to supplementary benefit and who would welcome something along the lines of this new clause to say that it is official and can be claimed. There might then be a different approach on the part of the people who really need it. They would then find out that they were entitled to it, and would be happy to apply for supplementary benefit. They would also then be entitled to the other allied benefits from which they are now cut off—heating bills, clothing grants and allowances which can be claimed only by people who receive supplementary benefit. At present, they are cut off from those benefits because they are afraid or do not understand their entitlement to supplementary benefit. Thus, the new clause would be a positive step in assisting people over 70 years of age.
Incidentally, even when pensioners are persuaded to claim the rent and rate rebates to which they are entitled, the delay in processing claims can be crucial to people of dignity and independence. Since 1 April this year, no one has yet received any increase in supplementary pensions to deal with rent and rate rebates. That, of course, is a direct result of the cuts in staff and in local DHSS offices.
We know—again, from our local experience—that the younger pensioners—those aged 60 and above—will apply for supplementary pensions, but they are put off by the jargon of the benefits and appeals system. It is difficult enough for us to wade through some of the forms and appeals procedures, and so on, but pensioners of 60-plus are frightened when they are confronted by such jargon. The publication of something simpler by the Government, in language that can be understood, would benefit that age group, too. They hate to feel that they are begging. They do not want to be reduced to the level of beggars for something for which they have paid, probably all their lives.
I do not want to denigrate the work of the DHSS staff. They are often sympathetic to pensioners. They probably have special categories of good claimants, bad claimants and not so good claimants. Good claimants would be pensioners, because they have a perfectly reasonable claim. However, there is a crying need, certainly in the Camden area, for a simple leaflet, in simple language that people of our age and people older than us can understand, to explain pensions, the methods of entitlement, and appeals procedures. That still has not been done.
Because of ignorance, fear and a lack of any official stamp on their entitlements and rights, pensioners find themselves with a disposable income, after they have paid their rent, of between £20 and £25 per week. More than 36 per cent. are below the poverty line. If their cases were

investigated, or if they understood their rights, they could easily and legitimately be lifted above that line. If pensions had remained linked to the national wage level—something for which we have campaigned for many years—they would have been even better off.
The clause must be supported by all who genuinely feel that there is an urgent need to inform people of their rights. They must be informed by the highest source in the land, namely, the Government, who must take the lead in telling people that schemes and entitlemennts are theirs by right. They must say "You need not be afraid to claim benefits". Their entitlements must be simply stated according to age and conditions. If the Government do not accept that suggestion there is something seriously wrong and their credibility can no longer be accepted in the areas of social services and social security.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kemptown. I hope that many of his colleagues will find it possible to support the Opposition on this modest new clause. We could have gone a great deal further, but the clause simply asks the Government to take the initiative by finding those who are entitled to benefit, explaining their entitlement to them and informing them how to obtain it. They must ensure that there is sufficient staff to pay the benefits. I welcome the new clause and I shall support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Race: The first question the House must ask is whether the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government are in favour of increasing the take-up of social benefits, and, if so, what they intend to do about it. That is the real question that we are posing today. If the Minister does not support the new clause or announce a major campaign to increase the take-up of new benefits, the Opposition will be entitled to say to the country that the Conservative Party is not in favour of increasing the take-up of benefits, but is more concerned about the minority who abuse the social security system. I hope that we will have a clear statement from the Government about their intentions.
In an earlier intervention the Minister said that the Strathclyde experiment of sending out postcards to individual electors was a political exercise. I wish to challenge the hon. Lady strongly on that point. I do not believe that a local authority is wrong if it seeks to improve the take-up of benefits in a certain area. It stands in precisely the same relationship to its local electorate as the Government stands in relation to the electors of Strathclyde.
If the Government wished to introduce a scheme to improve take-up of benefits in Strathclyde, Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole, no one in the House would say that it was a political exercise. Yet the Minister said that Strathclyde local council was undertaking political action by sending out postcards telling people that they could claim supplementary benefit or exceptional needs payments.
That attitude sticks in my craw. The Strathclyde council was provoked into taking that action because the Government changed the rules about who was eligible for benefit. As we all know, on 24 November last year the rules for claiming exceptional needs payments were changed by the Government. Ministers should not talk about keeping politics out of social security when their Government have cut benefits time after time. They did so last year by cutting 5 per cent. off invalidity benefits,


unemployment benefits and other benefits and by changing the rules for exceptional needs payments. Anyone who says that politics should be kept out of social security, and criticises a local authority for daring to try to increase the take-up of benefits in its area, is taking a wholly scandalous attitude.
5.15 pm
The take-up of benefits is a major issue. If we want to treat the problem seriously we must revert to the Supplementary Benefits Commission paper on the take-up of supplementary benefits which was published in 1978. It had a great deal to say about the extent of the problem. Many hon. Members have quoted figures given by the SBC for those who were not claiming supplementary pensions—namely, 600,000. The reasons given by the SBC for people not claiming benefits were significant. It said:
Failure to take up benefit has been seen as a result of some mixture of the scheme's complexity, administrative failures, ignorance and misconceptions about the scheme on the part of potential claimants and stigmas still associated with supplementary benefit.
All those factors are relevant.
To give the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) his due, he referred to the need for a wide-ranging approach to the question of take-up, involving all agencies. We must examine the reasons why people do not claim benefit. One reason is stigma. Conservative Members who have supported the campaigns of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and the arguments about scroungers—which have been blown up out of all proportion to the numbers involved—bear a heavy responsibility for increasing the stigma for those who might otherwise claim benefits. I am sickened by some of the remarks made by hon. Members about those who could claim social security benefits. They are discouraging large numbers from claiming their legitimate rights.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission was worried about the large numbers of people not only not claiming supplementary benefits, but a wide range of other benefits to which they were entitled. It said in its report:
All we can say is that this reluctance to claim appears to come from some mixture of pride, ignorance, a sense of stigma, reluctance to make the efforts which a claim calls for, a desire for self-sufficiency on the part of an individual or family, an unwillingness to become involved with a government agency and a feeling that the whole business is not worthwhile".
We cannot do anything about some of the problems—for example, the potential claimant who may be too lazy to go the DHSS office and claim his entitlement—but we can encourage people to overcome the stigma of social security benefits. That stigma exists because people, especially Conservative Members, talk about social benefits as if they were something generous given by the nation to those who otherwise could not look after themselves.
I recall the statement made shortly before the 1964 general election by Lord Home of the Hirsel. The noble Lord said that the old age pension was a donation. That stuck in the craw of retirement pensioners throughout the country. It was used by spokesmen of the Labour Party in various speeches. It exemplified in one word the Conservative Party's attitude towards some social benefits.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tory Party has a great knack for developing such terms? It

contends that disabled pensioners have been over-provided for and wishes to take back 1 per cent. It seems to have a great knack of linguistic dexterity.

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right. It seems that the donation last year was too substantial for the Conservative Party to accept.
We have a responsibility to overcome ignorance of social security benefit entitlement. What have the Government done to overcome it? We await with bated breath the Minister's response. The only precise answer that I can suggest is that they may have marginally improved some of the forms. They have changed the name of child benefit to one-parent family benefit. I accept that that is an improvement. However, they have done nothing to improve take-up. That is why the clause is on the Order Paper.
We want to shove and cajole the Government into doing something for those who are entitled to benefits and who do not claim them. Apart from the Strathclyde experiment, there have been innumerable local initiatives and schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) referred to the Harlow scheme and he was right to do so. There have been many others. One such scheme was undertaken by Casserly and Clark in 1976–77 under the previous Labour Administration. It is true that the problem has existed under successive Administrations.
Casserly and Clark revealed that in an occupation centre for the physically disabled, again in Strathclyde, 69 per cent. of those interviewed were not receiving all the benefits to which they were entitled. The result of that exercise was that those interviewed made a claim for at least one extra weekly benefit. The total cost to the DHSS was £12,000 a year at that time. I could recite many local examples. I shall not do so because it would be tedious and boring for the House. I merely say that Ministers know about the many local schemes that have been initiated and that they should start to take action now.
The House should be concerned about two main factors on take-up. One factor is means testing and the other is fraud and abuse. Means tests are important because they discourage prospective claimants from claiming benefit. That is partly because of the complexity of the schemes. There are many different means tests. There is a means test for school uniforms and another for eligibility for free school meals. There are, for example, different means tests for supplementary benefit. Prospective claimants are faced with increasingly complex schemes that they do not understand.
Several hon. Members have referred to the excellent work done by DHSS officers in their own constituencies. However, in the majority of instances the entitlement to benefit that has been calculated by DHSS officers has been shown to be wrong once it has been investigated by an hon. Member. I do not criticise officers for that, but it is a reflection of the complexity of the means test and the various schemes that are available that DHSS officers should get it wrong as well. We must address ourselves to the extent to which we can eliminate the complexity of means tests and thereby allow more to claim their legitimate rights.

Mr. Freud: I accept that, when the previous Labour Government were in office, the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of this place. However, will he tell us what that


Government did to make means tests more easy to understand and to improve what I think is agreed on both sides of the House to be an imperfect system?

Mr. Race: The previous Labour Government did a few things—

Mr. Bowden: Name them.

Mr. Race: —that were acceptable and good, but on the whole they did nothing to reduce the number of tests and in some respects they increased it. The benefits that they introduced for the disabled were means tested in some respects.
The problem presented by means tests is so serious that we should consider it carefully. I shall give one specific example of the way in which means tests operate to reduce people's understanding of the system and their ability to obtain benefit. I am talking especially about the disabled.
We try to encourage the disabled to become independent and not to depend on others for their daily existence. However, once a DHSS officer enters a disabled person's house and asks, "How dependent are you on your spouse or on your neighbours for basic household duties?", the disabled person tries to minimise his or her dependence because of the reflection of our attitude that they have to be independent, and thereby becomes ineligible for some of the benefits that would otherwise be available. That is the experience of those who are working for the disabled all the time.
Let us try to introduce a policy that will allow means tests to be abolished, will create universal benefit and will increase take-up. If such a policy has to be financed by taxing those with the highest income I would support that approach. I would rather see the highest paid have a benefit taxed away than see others have nothing at all.
The Minister may recall that in Committee I referred to a constituency example of alleged fraud and abuse. I said that one of my constituents had been visited by a local DHSS fraud officer. I disclosed that I had taken up the issue with the local office. I did not go into too much detail at that stage because to do so would have been inappropriate and wrong. I have now received a reply from the local DHSS office which contains an apology, which I have passed on to my constituent.
My constituent visited her local DHSS office. She said that her order book for supplementary benefit had expired and she was told that it could not have done, as it was supposed to run until May. She repeated that it was finished. A fraud officer was sent to interview her in her home. My constituent alleged that she was told by the officer—the interview took place when my constituent had not had any income for about three weeks—that she could live off the fat of her body for a little while because she was overweight. The local office regrets such an approach and apologises for any indication of anything of that sort having been said to my constituent.
I do not say that all fraud officers behave in that way. I merely say that there is a disincentive in the system. In other words, because we are now placing so much emphasis on fraud and abuse, we are in danger of reducing the number of legitimate claimants who come through the system.
5.30 pm
I have no doubt that if a well-publicised case of fraud and abuse exists and is published in a local newspaper, it may stop people from claiming locally. I agree with that. However, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the Government must accept that a campaign to stamp out fraud nationally must, by the same token, undermine people's ability and desire to claim their legitimate rights. for that reason, I hope that there will be a change of attitude by the Government on the fraud and abuse campaign.
The new clause tries to protect us against anything else the Government might do. I use those words because it is well known that the Government want to cut the number of statistical inquiries on social security. It would be right for the House to put that new clause in the Bill because it is the only way to ensure that the Government do not say in six months' time that they are terribly sorry but they cannot tell us how many people are not claiming supplementary benefit or supplementtary pension because they have cut the statistical inquiries which would give that information. If the clause is in the Bill, the Government have no option but to produce that report so that we can debate it and discuss the ways in which the Government should improve their services to the public.
That is a major point because the cuts in the survey division will be so serious that it is likely that the information which we want as Members of Parliament will not be forthcoming in future.
I do not want to start receiving ministerial replies to parliamentary questions which say that unfortunately the information is not available or the £50 rule operates and no further information can be obtained because it would cost too much.
For all those reasons, I hope that the House will support the new clause. I hope that the Conservative Party will show that it is more interested in the take-up of benefits than in the so-called "scroungers" campaign.

Mr. Freud: This clause is good. Each hon. Member who has spoken from the Opposition Benches to date has pretended that the Government are against the clause. I have always felt that there should be a standing order preventing people from naming the number of hon. Members in the House at any one time, so I shall simply say that even the sole occupant on the Government Back Benches—that number has now been doubled—also seemed to feel that the clause is good. One has no reason to believe that the Government are not sympathetic towards it.
I am aware that while I have been steadfast in opposition—whoever governed and whoever did not—the official Opposition have steadily reminded the Government of their duty to make the availability of benefits known to those who have a proper claim to them.
It is right that the clause should be part of the measure, not only so that we can monitor progress which is proper, but because not enough information is available. Far too often, when one asks a parliamentary question, the reply is that it would be disproportionately expensive to give an answer.
I believe that those figures are available; they are just not published. Local DHSS offices send a list of their claimants to their headquarters. Knowing the ways of Government—admittedly by repute rather than from experience—one knows that the headquarters send on the


figures and they end up as a statistic. If we are to run a decent, fair and humane system, the take-up figure of benefits is essential. If we severely penalise those who commit fraud—I agree with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said on the subject—we have a duty to help honest claimants to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled and no reforms can be achieved in the social security system unless we are in possession of the basic information.
I remind the Under-Secretary of State that I recently asked her a written question about the exceptional needs payments in respect of maternity benefit. If the figures had been high, they would have shown that maternity grant was insufficient. The Government could have done something about it in the knowledge that as so many people were properly claiming extra benefits on maternity grant, they had got it wrong.
The answer I received was that those figures were unavailable. Why are they unavailable? How can a Government get a grant right if they do not monitor how many people ask for supplementary benefit in respect of that grant? The Under-Secretary, who used to feel that 62 out of 500 represented 1·2 per cent., is now persuaded that it is 12 per cent. She needs all the help she can get from statistical departments, which are cutting down on their staff as an experiment. I shall give way to the hon. Lady, perhaps for a lecture in higher mathematics.

Mrs. Chalker: I assure the hon. Member for Ely that, left to my own devices, I can get it right.

Mr. Freud: If the Under-Secretary of State is left to her own devices, she will be interested to hear that I am the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. The Boundary Commission is currently trying to take away the city of Ely.
I accept that the information that Ministers receive, even if it is from their seniors, is often as bad as that which they receive from other parts of the House—but not to collect information provides far too great and too thick a smokescreen behind which a Government can hide.
When the hon. Member for Kemptown was speaking about the non take-up of benefits in his constituency, I intervened to ask what he was doing about it. I intervened because when I first became a Member of Parliament and I was keen, I decided to use my Young Liberals to wait outside social security offices and post offices to ask whether there was anything about which claimants were concerned and whether they felt that they were receiving the pamphlets and information to which they were entitled.
The hon. Member is right when he maintains that people are too proud and that they are unwilling to give information to random questioners, such as Young Liberals, Young Conservatives, and even old Liberals and old Conservatives, and even people behind post office counters. The House will be pleased to hear that I stopped that method after the first temporary attempt. However, I still believe that there are acceptable ways of informing people of their rights—for example, by pamphlets, local radio and newspaper advertisements.
I know how little many Government Departments care because when we debated index-linked retirement certificates, the amount of advertising which was done in the days when it was advantageous to buy was immeasurably lower than when the rate of inflation came down and those certificates became a pretty poor investment.
The amount of advertising done by the Treasury for premium bonds, which by any account must be one of the all-time bad gambles, is disgraceful when compared with the small amount of advertising devoted to the good investments. On the Liberal Bench we are committed neither to Government nor to opposition for the sake of opposition. I want to make it clear that I am not persuaded that the Government will not concede, at least in spirit, some of what the clause is trying to achieve.
Let me give examples of the failure of the system: First-time claimants of national insurance benefits are meant to be given forms SB8 and SB9 about means-tested benefits, but a survey in 1979 showed that only 20 per cent. received them.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission survey showed that £400 million went unclaimed and that 25 per cent. of those eligible were not claiming; that was in 1979. Those statistics were produced during a Labour Government and were roundly condemned by the Conservative Opposition. Neither party has done much about the problem. In the same year fewer than 50 per cent. of families with children were claiming their full housing benefits, rent rebates and child allowances.
My point is simple. Let the Government prosecute those who abuse the system, but if they wish to hold up their heads as a Government of honour they must try substantially harder to ensure that those who are entitled, receive—and I mean receive—not only benefits, but such information as will allow them to discover what is available.
Between £40 million and 50 million has been bandied about as the cost of additional social security snoopers. It may be the right amount, not enough or too much, but we should like to see a fraction of the money that is spent on prosecuting the guilty, invested in providing extra staff, for citizens' advice bureaux funding, advertisements or pamphlets, and distributing information that will allow rightful claimants to receive their entitlements.
I hope very much that the Government will reconsider the clause and will not refuse to sanction it simply because it was tabled by men opposed to anything that they do. It is a decent clause and proper consideration must be given to it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had hoped that by now the Minister would have intervened to accept the new clause. I now assume that she will express her sympathy and tell us that she cannot accept it.
I hope that the Government will view the new clause with sympathy. There is all-party concern about social security fraud and other crimes. However, our major concern is that in his campaign the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) concerned himself not only with that problem. He also tried to create the impression that that was the only problem with social security payments and that if it was solved all would be well. In addition, he tried to show that some people were getting benefits that they did not need and that the system was far too generous. As has gradually been discovered, the system is still extremely harsh and hostile. Week after week people who have become unemployed come to my advice bureau. They are horrified when they find out what benefits are actually being paid as opposed to what they were led to believe were being paid.
The hon. Gentleman's campaign led the country to believe that benefits could be cut and has resulted in the Government making the system even harsher. We want to make the public and the Government aware that the real problem is the under-receiver. Almost 1 million are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the major problem. The Government should show as much concern about that as they do about social security crimes.
Last week the Government claimed that £40 million had been saved, but they did not give details so we do not know whether it is a realistic figure. What assumptions did they make about how long a person would have continued to receive the benefit had it not been withdrawn? Did they use a week, a fortnight or a year? How many overpayments have been stopped, and who were they going to? The Under-Secretary of State made a similar smear in accusing decorators of receiving benefits. What percentage of the £40 million was involved there? If he cannot substantiate his claim, he should withdraw it. The Government employ well over 1,000 extra people to chase up fraud and to save £40 million. If underpayments amount to over £400 million, we need 10 times that number to sort that out, but the Government have given the problem little or no attention.
One of the most important ways to ensure that people receive benefits is to make them simple and easy to understand. The Government made a statement yesterday on child benefit, which is one benefit where the take-up is good because it is simple. The Government now appear to be making it more complicated. They are taking away choice in receiving the benefit as circumstances vary from week to week. People have been able to wait three or four weeks to draw the benefit, and keep it as an insurance against a big gas bill or a child suddenly tearing a pair of trousers. The Government are taking that choice away from new beneficiaries and making the benefit more complicated. People will have to opt to have it paid weekly or monthly. If they switch to supplementary benefit, they have to take action to have it paid weekly rather than to have it there as a right to fall back on.
Another problem that is tied up with underpayments is the late arrival of benefits. Many of my constituents find that it can take a week, a fortnight or even longer to claim benefits to which they are entitled. They often receive the benefits long after the urgent need for them has disappeared. Some of my constituents who appeal against refusal to pay benefits find that the appeal runs three, four or even five months after the need for the benefit. The Government should ensure that appeals are heard quickly.
The leaflets to encourage take-up of benefits have improved, but the quality of most of the leaflets does not make the slightest difference. Many of those who are entitled to benefit cannot, or do not, read. The Government should bear that in mind. I have checked up on many of those who come to my advice bureau and particularly on those who have problems with benefits. Often, they cannot read, or rarely read. Therefore, however well designed an official leaflet may be, they find it difficult to follow. Sometimes people have problems with their glasses, or excuse the fact that they cannot read by saying that they have not got their glasses. Those people find it difficult to read and understand forms. The way in which the form is written is also important. I give

the Government credit, because they have improved many of the forms. However, for many people that does not solve the problem.
One of the problems of the Strathclyde campaign was that it depended on a leaflet or postcard being sent out. The campaign was successful in a far larger area than Strathclyde, because the media paid it great attention and it was taken up by local radio. As a result of the publicity, three or four of my constituents asked me whether they were getting the right benefit. Until the Government tell us that they are prepared to run a campaign within the next six months, none of their criticisms can be justified.
I accept that the Labour Government started to erode the situation. However, the home visits system was of the greatest help to claimants because it ensured that people received the right amount of benefit. The system was intended to help people to get the benefit that they needed. It is appalling that the Government should return to a system of home visits in order to deprive people of benefit when they think that fraud is involved or that there has been an abuse of the system, when they cannot find enough people to undertake home visits to those who receive less than the correct amount of benefit. More than 1 million people are involved. The Government should do something about that.
The new clause only goes a little way, but it is a start. I ask the Government to accept it and to see that within the next six months a major campaign is carried out to ensure that 1 million people receive the benefit that they are entitled to.

Mr. Cryer: It is interesting to contrast the number of Conservative Members here today with the numbers of those in the Chamber last night when we dealt with the Government's tax on bank profits. Yesterday many Conservatives were in the Chamber to express their shock, horror and amazement at the Government's measure. Of course, they were in the Chamber because the subject under discussion concerned wealthy organisations. This debate is about the poor and, as a result there is a stark difference in the number of Conservative Members attending.
I turn to the intemperate attack made on me by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). I was amazed that he should attack my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and suggest that my hon. Friend, or any other Opposition Member, would state or imply that he condoned fraud. It does not behove the hon. Gentleman to criticise those who express deep resentment at his attack on my hon. Friend. After all, the Labour Government instituted the framework of the Welfare State. When we were in Government, the Opposition made successive attacks on the Government and claimed that "welfarism" was somehow softening the nation. Beveridge reported immediately before the Labour Party was swept into office. We largely implemented that report. It is fair to claim that we built up the framework of the Welfare State.
More deeply than anyone else, we resent the fact that people deceive the Welfare State, because that allows unscrupulous people to attack the system. I understand the difficulty that the hon. Member for Kemptown finds himself in. He is one of the few Conservatives to express concern about those in receipt of benefit. Therefore, he is sensitive about this issue. However, he has never made a complete and utter condemnation of the unscrupulous


campaign that was carried out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Labour Members resented the way in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South conducted his campaign, aided and abetted by The Sun and other unscrupulous newspapers. Those newspapers found the campaign a convenient stick with which to beat the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) said that one reason for the lack of take-up was the stigma attached to benefits. The type of campaign that was started by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—which was sustained by this Government—inhibited take-up.

Mr. Freud: For the record, I simply wonder whether, as the hon. Gentleman had claimed Mr. Beveridge, he would also like to claim Lloyd George and Mr. Gladstone.

Mr. Cryer: If the hon. Gentleman examines the legislation that Liberal Government introduced in that dim and distant age when such Governments existed, he will find that it does not in any way match the comprehensive legislation introduced by the post-war Labour Government.
The Sun led a national campaign on social security scroungers and on fraud. It was used as a stick with which to beat the Labour Government. It was said that the Labour Government were soft on scroungers and that we were sapping the nation's vitality, because we believed in the Welfare State. There was a national response. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South received about 750 replies. About two dozen of them could be substantiated. About half of them were being investigated, anyway, by the fraud section of the DHSS. The campaign revealed a significant amount of prejudice. In addition, it wasted much of the time of DHSS officals, who scrupulously pursued the matters that had been raised in order to meet the prejudice of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and of The Sun.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: It is worth putting it on the record that at the same time as The Sun campaign, casual workers, in league with the management, were doing fiddles not a million miles away to get out of paying income tax. With the co-operation of the Inland Revenue the Labour Government had to declare a tax amnesty. Until a few weeks ago, that was still the subject of a court action by the National Federation of the Self Employed. Therefore, on both sides of the coin, the hands of The Sun are not clean. It was involved in tax abuse and in the scrounger campaign.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. When the Inland Revenue Commissioners—not the Government—declared an amnesty, the Labour Government were criticised, because they seemed to adopt a double standard. On the one hand they were resisting the unscrupulous scrounger campaign, but on the other they were apparently allowing tax avoidance to continue. We had to meet those criticisms.
I emphasise the importance of take-up at a time when more and more people have to apply for social security payments. After 12 months, unemployment benefit ceases. If a person has less than £2,000, he has no option but to seek social security benefit. I have a copy of "Newsflash", which is dated April 1981. It is issued by the Wool Textile and Clothing Industry Action Committee. It states that 10,000 jobs were lost in each month of 1980 in the textile and clothing industry. "Newsflash" states:

It was estimated that 100,000 jobs were lost in the whole year. In fact this number disappeared in just 11 months. To make good this job loss the UK would need to secure not only the much publicised Nissan car assembly plant but 24 additional car assembly plants of an equivalent size.
In April 1982, how many people will be employed and how many will be in receipt of supplementary benefit? It is likely that in our present economic decline the vast majority of those 100,000 people will be in receipt of supplementary benefit. The take-up and information about rights will become increasingly important.
6 pm
That is sad. We prefer people to have jobs. However, the Government's economic policies, supported assiduously by the hon. Member for Kemptown, are resulting in thousands of people being brought face to face with social security benefits.
One local authority has anticipated the new clause and tried to give information. The Bradford authority, under Labour control, has distributed leaflets in the Bradford area. The leaflets are headed "Are you getting enough?". That is perhaps an ambiguous heading but it draws attention to the leaflet that provides information about social security rights and rent and rate rebates. A free postal reply service is provided so that people can ask for more information.
It is too early to estimate the response. I hope that a statistical analysis will be made. Many people believe it to be a valuable service. I am sure that the authority would like to extend the exercise throughout the area but they have cash shortages. It is incumbent upon the Government to finance such campaigns. Labour controlled local authorities, following the Strathclyde example, are using their meagre resources to inform people of their rights. Bradford's campaign is appreciated but the onus is on the Government to initiate a similar campaign, and not only in areas with the greatest unemployment. A national campaign is needed, because there are pockets of deprivation everywhere.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Some people cannot read, write or understand. The Government have just given millions of pounds to the breakfast television people. Why do they not make it a condition that some time is devoted to the DHSS and other Government Departments so that they can present oral and pictorial advice? The experts could explain to the people and if we believed that the information was not being provided adequately we could demand improvements.

Mr. Cryer: That is an excellent suggestion. When Governments hand over franchises to groups of beautiful people who are already well off and who are given a licence to print money, they could easily make it a condition that part of the transmission time should be used to provide public service information. Instead, the Government are handing over significant sums to purchase advertising time to provide public information.
The Minister's comments on local authority campaigns were ambiguous. I invite the Under-Secretary to comment on the work in Bradford. It has not received the widespread publicity that the Strathclyde experiment received. Nevertheless, it is a valuable exercise. Local authorities should be praised and encouraged when they embark on such a campaign. The Minister should encourage the Bradford Labour-controlled council to work more vigorously on the campaign. She should encourage


other councils, whoever controls them, to do likewise. The DHSS should also provide funds for councils which are prepared to undertake such work.
The new clause is of great value because it provides Parliament with a slight improvement in parliamentary accountability. Under the clause a statement in the House is required on the action proposed to improve the take-up of benefits. The clause does not provide us with the right of a debate but a statement would encourage opportunities for debate and put on the pressure for a debate on the range of benefits, their application and take-up. That is an improvement in accountability to the House.
The new clause is modest. It provides an improvement for people who are not well-off and who are in need of the benefits. It affects the poorest in the community. It improves democratic accountability and therefore has much merit. I hope that the Government will either accept it or at least implement the terms of the clause.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) claimed that the Welfare State was established by the Labour Government after the war. His claim is fully justified. When the Labour Party fought the 1945 election, it outlined the establishment of the Welfare State. Arthur Greenwood called upon William Beveridge to take charge of the committee that examined all the social services. There is no doubt that if a Labour Government had not been elected the Welfare State would not have been established.
National insurance, national assistance, national insurance for industrial injuries, family allowances, the National Health Service, the death grant and a whole range of social benefits were established for the first time by the Labour Government. The Tories opposed the Second Readings of some of the Bills which implemented those benefits.

Sir Frederick Burden: The Beveridge considerations took place when there was a national Government. Both parties undertook to implement Beveridge if elected. Why is not the hon. Gentleman honest about that?

Mr. Evans: The Tories promise, pause, prepare, and postpone and end by leaving things alone. They talked about legislation, but when it came before the House they voted against it. They voted against setting up the National Health Service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the question of take-up.

Mr. Evans: I am pleased to learn that the Government apparently are for the Welfare State. Many people believe that the Government want to undermine the Welfare State and that they are withdrawing certain welfare benefits introduced by the last Labour Government. Earnings-related benefit is one example. There are many unemployed people who under the last Labour Government would have received earnings-related benefit, but this Government have withdrawn that benefit. Earlier this week we heard that this miserable Government will not pay a tax refund to the unemployed. How can we say that there is a Welfare State when the unemployed are having their tax rebates withheld?
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on tabling this clause. Although we can claim

the right to have established the Welfare State, perhaps we could have done more to draw the attention of people in need to the fact that they are entitled to claim benefit. We have an honourable record in that respect. When Miss Peggy Herbison was appointed Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in 1964 her first step was to make pensioners aware that they had the right to claim supplementary benefit. Within weeks it was found that over 300,000 pensioners were entitled to supplementary benefit. That was established by Jim Griffiths, the Minister for Health and National Insurance.
For 13 years the Tory Government tried to make the people feel that they were getting the pension to which they were entitled but that they should not claim anything else; that there was a stigma attached to claiming supplementary benefit and that they should try to manage without it.

Sir Frederick Burden: Does the hon. Member not recall that Labour Governments refused absolutely to give a pension to widows of ex-Service men who died before October 1950? This Government have not only dealt with that, but have drawn attention to their right to draw it.

Mr. Evans: In some small examples the Tory Party appears to say "We are really concerned about the Welfare State" but on the major matters it tries to undermine it. There are times when Tories try to tell us that they are not bad after all, that they are reformed characters and that they really believe in the Welfare State, but they are undermining its fabric.
I look forward to hearing a contribution from the right hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir Frederick Burden). If he claims that he supports the Welfare State as much as those of us on this side of the House, I hope that he will support the clause. I would finish quickly if I thought I could persuade him to intervene. It would be good to find Conservatives who would say "We are concerned about the problems of the people. We are prepared to show that we support the Welfare State and we will therefore implement the clauses".
6.15 pm
Reference has already been made to the Strathclyde experiment. Hundreds of thousands of people are entitled to benefit which they are not claiming. It is a scandal that the Government should be putting emphasis on that very small minority who are involved in fraud. I am not saying that people who are making fraudulent claims should not be investigated and dealt with, but I should think it would be better to deal with the problem of tax evasion.
Far more revenue is due to the Treasury from that source than from people who are claiming benefits to which they are not entitled.
I hope that we shall get the figures which make up the so-called saving of £40 million. Over 1,000 civil servants are being given the task of finding out what benefits people receive to which they are not entitled. We have heard about the binoculars which have been bought for them to study certain arrangements amongst families to ensure that they are not claiming benefits to which they are not entitled. Has the Minister had reports about harassment, about the wave of anxiety caused to individuals in receipt of invalidity benefit and mobility allowances who have been investigated in this process?
I have taken up certain cases where people who receive invalidity benefit and who have medical evidence to show


that their health has greatly deteriorated have been investigated in an effort to try to stop the payments of benefit. People who were granted a mobility allowance for the first time two or three years ago and whose immobility has greatly increased now find that their allowance has been temporarily stopped. The onus is being put on them to make fresh claims. Constituents of mine in receipt of unemployment benefit were told that they had to go to a work camp at Henley-in-Arden, otherwise their unemployment benefit would stop. In 1980 people who were unemployed for over 12 months and who were claiming supplementary benefit were told "If you don't go to Henley-in-Arden your social security will be stopped." I took up the case, and I am pleased to say that the Minister was able to respond and that that nonsense has stopped.
In my area the unemployment rate is 17 per cent. and there are no job vacancies. In these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to determine whether people are work-shy. People claiming supplementary benefit are told that they are getting their full entitlement, yet they might have a blind mother and could be getting a dependant's allowance. People are not informed about the benefits to which they are entitled. I hope that the Minister will employ the civil servants to whom I have referred to look through the records of people who are claiming benefit and to ensure that they are getting all the benefit to which they are entitled.
We are going through very difficult times. There are 2½ million people unemployed. They get very small benefits and they are faced with all sorts of problems. In my constituency the water rate was previously taken care of in the local authority rate. People living from week to week on supplementary benefit are now confronted with an additional bill of this kind.
If there are ways and means of helping people with their problems, then the Government have an obligation to do so. We need to know what benefits are being taken up. It is important that we should be told by the Government what action they are taking to ensure that people are aware of the benefit to which they are entitled. Let us get away from the emphasis on scrounging. Let us put the emphasis on a Government who apparently support the Welfare State. I hope that we shall get a positive response from the Minister and that she will accept the clause.

Mr. William Hamilton: I apologise for being late in attending the debate, I was in the Public Accounts Committee investigating other scandals of a different kind, namely, the scandals in the black economy. When one compares the Government's response to tackling that problem with their very energetic approach to dealing with what they call scroungers, one sees the difference in attitude to the very poor and, in many case, to the very rich—people such as the Vesteys.
My guess would be that the Government will not accept the new clause. It is contrary to what Sir Derek Rayner is about. There have been letters in the newspapers complaining about the Government's restriction of the availability of statistics about all kinds of things. Sociologists and economists have been writing letters to newspapers complaining about the restriction of information available in all sorts of spheres, information which ought to be available to them and to this House.
If I were a gambling man, I would bet my last halfpenny that the Government will say "No, we shall not do this"—even though it is assumed that several hundreds of

millions of pounds rightly belong to ordinary poor people who, for one reason or another, are not claiming it. One of the reasons why they are not claiming it is precisely that the Government have put inspectors on asking all kinds of questions. They were reported on some while ago in the magazine New Society. I remember quoting it at length in the House.
In the extraordinary steps that the Government are taking, Big Brother from the DHSS is watching not Mr. Vestey but Mrs McTaggart in West Fife, who is, maybe, diddling the social security of 50p a week. The Government are not concerned with the millions that Vesteys are getting away with. They are concerned with the pence that someone in. Fife or Bradford might be getting away with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who has got maximum publicity in this House. The only publicity that he has ever received in all the time that he has been a Member has been when he has referred to scroungers who were on social security. When the hon. Member was invited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was then the Minister, to send in the letters, to produce the evidence, he sent the letters in but he carefully obliterated the addresses of the writers, which alone would have allowed my right hon. Friend to investigate the validity of the hon. Member's charges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has properly referred to the undoubted and undeniable fact that in the last two years the Government have clobbered mercilessly, in various ways, the poor, the helpless. the sick, the old and even the disabled. There is a massively miserable record over those two years of the differences of approach to the poor and the handicapped, the people at the bottom of the pile, and the approach to those at the top. There has been and there is no serious and sustained campaign by the Government to make sure that the people who are most disadvantaged—by definition, they are the people on supplementary benefits of various kinds—are getting all that this House and the Government think they are legally entitled to.
I want to quote from a Supplementary Benefits Commission discussion paper produced in 1978. The commission calculated in that document that about 600,000 people were not getting what they were entitled to and that the shortfall was about £200 million. In the nature of things, that must be a very rough estimate of the figure. But that £200 million is no less accurate an estimate than the estimate of £3 billion to £4 billion in regard to people who are evading or avoiding tax. Those are the figures that the Inland Revenue gave to us in the Public Accounts Committee on the black economy. People at the top of the pile are getting away with £3 billion to £4 billion, and £200 million is not going to people at the bottom who are legally entitled to it.
I hear mutterings from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to the effect that not all the people who get away with that £3 billion to £4 billion are rich. When we were talking about this matter in the Public Accounts Committee in public session last week, one Conservative Member was at great pains to switch almost the whole of the questioning to the subject of window cleaners. He wanted to pin all the blame on window cleaners for getting away with £3 billion to £4 billion in the year. That was the impression that he was trying to create.
I remarked that there were bigger fish in the sea than window cleaners. The Vesteys and others are getting away with all that cash, and the Government are doing damn all. [Interruption.] The record is there. The Under-Secretary might say that there is something in the Finance Bill to deal with Vesteys, but Vestey is only one of the big fish among the whole lot of sharks in that infested sea. I am making the comparison between the Government's lack of energy in chasing those people and their enormous energy in chasing the so-called scroungers.
All that we are saying is that the Government should be just as active in making sure that people get what they are entitled to as they are active in chasing people who they think are getting illegal benefits.
In the discussion paper, the commission says that it will be necessary to concentrate a good deal of attention on the two most deserving categories—the unemployed and the pensioners. That was in 1978, before the Government came to power, but since then they have added another 1 million to the unemployment figure, so that the problem is much more acute, and many of those, as some of my hon. Friends have said, are long-term unemployed who, at the end of the year, must go on to supplementary benefit. The commission says that these two groups are responsible for the largest amount of unclaimed benefit.
6.30 pm
I quote at length from what the commission says a little later, remembering that this was written in 1978:
Although the average amount of unclaimed benefit is low for pensioners, the period of entitlement is likely to be much longer. Moreover given the large proportion of pensioners (about a third) with an unclaimed entitlement of under £1 a week, the amount unclaimed for the rest must be substantially higher and this takes no account of the ECA's which might have been payable in addition. The Commission concludes therefore that families with children should be the top priority in efforts to improve the take-up of supplementary benefit and that pensioners should be the other main group on whom efforts should be concentrated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), was seeking to ascertain why people do not claim. It is not necessarily ignorance. It is not necessarily pride. It is a mixture of all kinds of things. The document from the Supplementary Benefits Commission says:
We still do not know exactly why particular groups of people are reluctant to claim supplementary benefit. Knowledge of the scheme's existence does not appear to be the main problem and simply providing information does not necessarily lead to significant increase in the take-up of benefit…Failure to take up benefit has been seen as a result of some mixture of the scheme's complexity, administrative failings, ignorance and misconceptions about the scheme on the part of potential claimants and stigmas still associated with supplementary benefit. But the results of research studies have been inconclusive in establishing the reason why particular groups do not claim. All we can say is that this reluctance to claim appears to come from some mixture of pride, ignorance, a sense of stigma, reluctance to make the efforts which a claim calls for, a desire for self sufficiency on the part of the individual or family…
That seems to me to be emphasising the fact that the great majority of people who are in this unfortunate position are scrupulously honest. That is not to say that there may not be a tiny minority who are scroungers. Nobody on this side of the House makes any apology for them; there is no defence for them. Do not let that charge be laid at our door. Our charge is that the Government are devoting infinitely more energy to the minority of scroungers than they are to the people who, for one reason or another, are not seeking their legitimate rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to an initiative that had been taken by his own Labour-controlled authority in Bradford. I remember the violent hostility of the Department to the initiative that was taken by Strathclyde, another Labour-controlled authority, to ensure that people got what they were entitled to. The Under-Secretary herself was very hostile to the Strathclyde initiative. I hope that she will not only deny that but state positively that she will encourage local authorities to take what initiative they can in their own areas to ensure that people get their entitlement.
I have a news item from Harlow council in Essex which reads:
Detailed work by the council in a unique survey has brought hundreds of retired people in the town news of extra money to help their weekly budget. Conducted by the Financial and Community Services Department the survey analysed the rebate returns and discovered that many retired people were eligible for supplementary benefit pension entitlements of between one and six pounds a week. Three hundred and fifty letters went out in December 1980 bearing the good tidings and Senior Welfare Rights Officer Tony Bennett reports 'Already dozens of people have taken our advice and claimed this money which is justly theirs. The amount claimed totals some £15,000 a year so far.
Towards the end it says:
One local resident found he was better off by £1·10 a week as a result of the letter and his supplementary pension claim. However, with other extras the total came out at £4·76 a week when the social security office had examined all the details. A council spokesman said, 'By multiplying even preliminary results across the nation, clearly tens of millions of pounds lie unclaimed by a section of the community which is often in most need. This is a right, not a charity handout'. In the London area alone the Welfare Rights team calculate a staggering £10 million probably lies unclaimed," —
in London alone. If the Government have any sense of equity in view of their record in the last two years in their treatment of the very poor at the one end and the very wealthy at the other, they can do no less than make sympathetic noises tonight that they will use as much energy and enthusiasm to make sure that these people get their rights as they do in ensuring that the tiny minority of scroungers get their desserts.

Mrs. Chalker: This has been a long and varied debate.
May I at the outset put paid to the nonsense that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) spoke at one point—it was not all nonsense—when he talked about the dismantlement of the Welfare State. No Government who are allocating £27 billion public expenditure on benefits in 1981–82 can possibly be accused of ignoring or dismantling the Welfare State. It is 27 per cent. of our public expenditure and the money to pay for it has to come from those of us who are fortunate, who have jobs, and who contribute through taxation and national insurance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Chalker: I wish to get on. I have only just begun and I should like to continue.
We have had exaggeration on some issues. That always happens in debates on issues that are dear to the hearts of many hon. and right hon. Members. We have had some unusual expressions of what has been going on over the years, but we have also had some sincere interest in the question of take-up and delivery of benefit. For that reason, if for no other, this debate has been worthwhile because it has brought home to many people the fact that there is much more to be done. When people talk about giving media coverage to enable better take-up to be achieved, perhaps media coverage of our debate will help.
I want to make a few remarks about the subject of fraud and abuse since it has been raised by many hon. Members during the debate. This is not the occasion—and you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order if I were to attempt it—to make a full-scale statement on the Government's current campaign on social security fraud and abuse, but I want to say a few brief words about it. I believe that this campaign is necessary if people are to have faith in a system, that their money is being spent properly and that those who are genuinely entitled to benefit get it.
The savings that we claim—£170 million in total, including £40 million through the work of additional staff employed during 1980–81—are not exaggerated; they reflect moderate assumptions from the data we have obtained. The savings have not been achieved using questionable methods. At all times and in every way investigators have been required to observe very high standards of conduct and the campaign has not been conducted at the expense of honest claimants, as some Labour Members would have us believe. The honest claimants have been and remain our main priority. They have nothing whatsoever to fear from successful efforts to prevent unjustified payments. In fact, the more resources that there are for genuine claimants, the better they will fare, and that is something to which we must give our earnest attention.
Over the last year the Department has received many telephone calls from disabled people, elderly people and others who have said "Thank goodness you are taking action because now I know that I am right to make a claim". It is remarkable that they have been complaining about the existence of fraud or abuse and saying that it rubbed off on genuine claimants and beneficiaries; they have been saying that they know we want the system to be balanced. It is in striking a fair balance that sometimes the Opposition do themselves a disservice. They know as well as we do—they have repeated it from the Front Bench and from the Back Benches—that if people are abusing the system they should be stopped.
Some hon. Members might want me to stray into areas covered by other Government Department, but I cannot do that today. Wherever abuse exists it must be right for those in charge of the scheme to rout it out.

Mr. Buchan: It is a great pleasure to listen to a Minister who believes so firmly in her own Department and puts its case forward so strongly. She will accept that some of us are rather sceptical about floods of telephone calls coming directly to the Ministry bearing that message, as no one here has ever encountered it in real life.
It would be interesting to know how many telephone calls there have been. The real charge is that the campaign, as illustrated by the guidelines issued, has as its main effect, even if it is not its main purpose, the discouragement of the innocent from applying and the encouragement of the innocent to withdraw their claims.

Mrs. Chalker: I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is standing the whole argument on its head. I repeat, loud and clear, so that the BBC or any other medium reporting the debate may broadcast or print the good news, that anybody who is entitled to benefit has nothing to fear in taking up a claim with the local office.
I understand why the clause has been tabled and I understand the concern that has been expressed about take-up. I want to explain why I have to say that the Government cannot accept the clause. The report which is envisaged in paragraph (a) would have no relevance to the uprating of benefits which is required by clause 1. That is perhaps the technical objection. Information about the numbers of persons claiming the benefits concerned in the year up to the previous uprating in the preceding November would not in any event be available at the time when the uprating statement is normally made by the Secretary of State. In the Government's view, information about the numbers receiving benefits can more suitably be provided by the publication of statistics in the normal way. Contrary to what some hon. Members have said, the publication of these relevant statistics will continue.
The question of action taken to encourage people to claim the benefits in question is under constant consideration. I probably bother my officals on this issue as much as on any other issue. It has no relevance to the uprating exercise. One by-product of an uprating exercise is that somtimes it brings the existence of the benefit and the size of the benefit to the notice of the general public through the media, particularly through local radio, which is an extremely good way of communicating, and thereby encourages take-up. We believe it is much more appropriate to make all the information available on the specific benefit as the occasion arises.
There is no evidence that take-up is a serious problem in relation to the generality of benefits covered by section 125 of the Act. It has, I know, been suggested that there is a shortfall in relation to attendance allowance claims, which are covered by that section. There are no national data on eligibility to support this, and the increasing number of claims and awards, especially for attendance allowance, are encouraging. The small local studies which have prompted successful new claims suggest that this may be the most effective way of getting people to overcome reluctance to claim, but we shall be looking again at ways of improving information and removing misunderstanding.
6.45 pm
The main debate has been about supplementary benefit, which does not come under section 125 of the Act. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the 1978 report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The latest figures relating to 1979 are that about 75 per cent. in terms of those eligible for supplementary benefit claim it and get it, and 83 per cent. in terms of the value of benefits which might be claimed is actually claimed. I accept that that is still not good enough, but the question is how to get the information through to that 25 per cent. or 17 per cent. Many hon. Members have given reasons why they think people do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled.
The reasons are indeed complex. Yes, there is a stigma, especially amongst elderly people who do not want to claim. I say loud and clear that those pensioners who do not get a 100 per cent. old-age pension are beginning to be followed up, and they should always ask for a supplementary benefit claim form. I want to have the right technology to allow us automatically to follow up people who do not get a 100 per cent. pension, because they may be amongst the small losers, those who lose 20p or 30p a week. However small the weekly amount might be, it all


mounts up, and I would be the last to deny that. The indications are that the amount of benefit which goes unclaimed in any individual case is likely to be small, although important.
Rash comments were made by Opposition Members about the new supplementary benefit scheme. That scheme emphasises the entitlement of people to their supplementary benefit by putting their rights into regulations and simplifying the rules. We have published a handbook which explains the new scheme—I thank the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for what he said—and there are new leaflets on which much effort has been spent to make them simpler and more direct than the previous leaflets. The Government do not accept that a statement on take-up would add anything to the efforts which are already being made.
I want now to refer to comments made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West. He referred to the small-scale project carried out in North Yorkshire and reported to hon. Members through the Disablility Alliance. In this project 23 disabled people were interviewed and encouraged to apply for benefits for which the project worker considered they might be eligible.
From the results of the project the report concluded that there was a serious problem of failure by disabled people to take up benefits to which they were entitled. If hon. Gentlemen and people outside the House criticise the Government for lack of concern, we have to see how we can better get benefits to those people. Certainly the effort that has been made is helpful, but it is an exaggeration to suggest that the applications of the 20 people who failed to claim would have succeeded. The number of successful claims made during that period was very much smaller. There were, I think, seven successful claims for disability or incapacity benefits not previously claimed and a few for family income supplement or local authority rebate. Whether it is that small but valuable effort in North Yorkshire, or the one taking place in Bradford—about which I want to learn more because I do not have the details at present—it is important for local authorities to target what they are doing.
That brings me to the Strathclyde exercise. My worry about Strathclyde was that it was so widely targeted that for many weeks it prevented the delivery of benefits to people who were genuinely entitled to them. It was not the best way of using the resources available. The fact that only 340 people received weekly benefit out of 100,000 who were sent postcards means that the success rate was only 0·5 per cent. A success rate of that size suggests that if a local authority decides to undertake such an exercise it can target it better.
We could go over this ground for many hours more, but I wish to draw the attention to the benefits and what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady referred to the 340 people who received weekly benefit out of the 100,000 who sent in postcards. The 300 figure that I quoted came from the sample of 500.

Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear what I said. Out of that sample of 500, 62 people were entitled to weekly benefit—12 per cent. However,

out of the 100,000 postcards sent out, only 340 people received weekly benefits, and according to our statisticians that is a 0·5 per cent. success rate.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the end of the period of the old scheme there was a large number of exceptional needs payments, but there was so much variation in the old scheme that many people who should perhaps have made their claims earlier were pushed into making them at the last minute. They succeeded, but because of the discretion of the old system the variation across the country was of concern just as much to the Labour Government as it was to us.
My point is that the resources used to send out those 100,000 postcards might have been better spent had they been used on groups that were much more likely to have an entitlement.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I must continue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
I should like to comment on the other benefits that have been mentioned.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: In the main, Labour Members have referred to supplementary benefit. However, there is almost a 100 per cent. take-up in terms of national insurance benefits, particularly the retirement pension, in addition to child benefits. If the claim is made but not at the right moment, the arrears are paid.
Those hon. Members who follow these matters will know that the question of a unified housing benefit has been under review. Consultations are now taking place with the local authorities to see whether some sense can be made of the variety of housing benefits—for some of which there is still a low take-up—and the mix between them and the supplementary benefit, where people are perhaps in doubt about which they should claim. Those consultations are now proceeding apace. I hope that it will be possible to simplify housing benefits in the future.
Increasing take-up must be targeted, and two specific areas are already organised. I am delighted to say that Brian Rix has kindly agreed to assist in a television filler, as well as in advertising, to publicise benefits for the handicapped. I am grateful to him for the contribution that he is making, not only through his own organisation on mental handicap but also across this whole area.
The new leaflet "Help for Handicapped People" published earlier this year—the International Year of Disabled People—is, I am told, a good deal better than any which the disabled organisations have received previously. It is much more extensive. Already we are seeking ways in which we can better deliver to that group the benefits to which they may be entitled.
Labour Members have referred to child benefit and specifically to what we now call one-parent benefit, which was formerly known by its rather dubious name of child benefit increase. We changed the name for a good reason—to say to single parents who might be entitled, "Make a claim".
This summer, we are following through a specific letter to 300,000 or more single payees named on child benefit books in case they may have an entitlement to one-parent benefit. We believe that to be important. Regrettably, some of them do not make claims at present, and they should be encouraged to do so.
I repeat a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowen) in his interesting contribution—and I acknowledge the work done by my hon. friend and other hon. Members on behalf of pensioners. Irrespective of the group to which they belong, if people believe that they are entitled to benefit, they should visit their local office and inquire about it. Let there be no doubt about this. People should be encouraged. I am glad that hon. Members have said that they usually get good service in their relationships with local offices. I pay tribute to the staff who make the effort to get those benefits to people.
We shall probably have to look at new ways of doing things for pensioners. Earlier I mentioned new computing techniques which may he available before the second pension scheme begins to eliminate some of the problems associated with too low a pension for the elderly, because that scheme will only come to fruition in 17 years.
I pay tribute to the citizens advice bureaux and other groups which seek to bring benefit to people and to tell them of their rights. I must correct one comment. When the Government came into office, they made an extra grant of £2 million to the citizens advice bureaux so that they could extend their task. The CAB in my own area has told me that it is extending tasks. It is reaching out to do the job to which every hon. Member has referred.
An entitlement in law under the new supplementary benefits scheme, and a clarification of that to which claimants are entitled, is much better than the discretion with which we have laboured for many years, although that played its part in the whole development. It is also important to remind claimants that they can obtain a basic statement of how their benefit is made up. If that statement is insufficient, or if they do not understand it, they can ask for a further explanation to check that they are getting that to which they are entitled.
Some hon. Members have commented on the leaflets that are now written. The hon. Member for Stockport, North referred to the problems of reading them. However, they are extremely straightforward. For example, I do not know how we could make the instructions more simple than they are in leaflet SB1, "Cash Help—How to Claim Supplementary Benefit".
There are four basic instructions. The first is:
Tear off this form and post it of us at your social security office. You can get the address or a free stamped addressed envelope from the post office.
The second instruction is:
We will then get in touch with you.
The third instruction is:
If you are a pensioner we will visit you at home. But if you would like to talk about your claim at our office instead, put an `X' in this box".
For pensioners, we accept that home visiting should continue as a matter of course. The fourth instruction is:
If you need money very urgently call on us at the social security office, or telephone.
Many people in real need will find that that is the best way to resolve their problems.
A major effort is being made todeal with specific benefits by local office staff, hon. Members and many voluntary organisations. Although I cannot accept the new clause for the reasons I have given, I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) that in spirit I understand only too well what the debate is about. Efforts will be made to improve the take-up of benefits for which there is an unsatisfactory take-up now.

Mr. Rooker: The debate has been worth while for the last quarter of an hour of the Minister's speech. Every hon. Member who has participated and listened to the debate will be grateful for the way in which the Minister has answered the debate positively. I make no bones about that. She has made one or two announcements.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Rooker: Once I have begun my speech, I shall gradually give way to my hon. Friends. Many hon. Members are waiting to join the embassy cocktail circuit and I do not intend to curtail my speech for that reason.
We thoroughly approve of the announcement to draw the new single parent benefit to the attention of single payees named on the child benefit book. That is an excellent practical idea after the change of benefit. We share in the thanks to Brian Rix for his agreement to make a television filler. That follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said about breakfast time television.
The Central Office of Information uses the radio regularly for public announcements during the day when the disabled and the elderly are at home. We do not use television enough for those announcements. I hope that the filler will be used on all channels at all convenient times of the day, including peak viewing hours, when the advertisers and the TV companies will necessarily be deprived of income.
The debate has been a little one-sided, as most social security debates are. We have heard a speech from only one Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). He voted against the Bill on Second Reading and I have no doubt that he will join us in the Lobby, if not on the new clause perhaps after tomorrow's debate. We heard a speech from a member of the Liberal Party but there has been no attendance from the members of the Social Democratic Party. I do not know whether they have a spokesman for social security.

Mr. Mike Thomas (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): rose—

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman could have made a speech at any time during the last three hours. We are not on a timetable motion and there is no guillotine. The hon. Gentleman may have been on that Bench for the past 10 minutes, but that is the only time in the past three hours when a member of the SDP has been here.

Mr. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Rooker: At no time in the past three hours has any member of the SDP sought to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Thomas: I am not sure that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will note, the Social Democratic Party is represented in the debate. There has been a representative of the party here throughout the debate.

Mr. Cryer: That is not true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is saying.

Mr. Mike Thomas: We do not choose to take up the time of the House on every occasion, though I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so glad to hear our views. That reflects the statement I made yesterday, that opposition for opposition's sake is a waste of everyone's time.

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Member had been here he would not have said that. The Opposition have introduced a new clause of which the Government have partly and constructively met the spirit. However, they will not accept the new clause. This has probably been one of the most useful debates on any aspect of social security in this Session. Although few Conservative Members have contributed, they know that there is a problem about take-up of benefit, as many hon. Members have shown. It cannot be argued that this is opposition for opposition's sake when all we are seeking to do is to change the law so that those people—mainly, though not solely, pensioners—can receive the legal entitlement that Parliament has already decreed. By using the parliamentary process as parliamentarians we are entitled to make speeches in a debate. What is wrong with that? That is the role of Members of Parliament. Neither I nor my hon. Friends who have spoken will take lectures from hon. Gentlemen who do not use the Chamber to make their case but come in at the end of a debate to make cheap remarks.

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I want to draw attention to the brief remarks on take-up in the last report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission for the year 1979.

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has already made a speech.

Mr. Freud: In all fairness, will the hon. Gentleman accept that in my speech I said exactly what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) said? That is, that opposition for the sake of opposition is pointless and alien to the nature of any parliamentarian who cares for due process of legislation and Government.

Mr. Rooker: That is all right. What is the problem in new clause 1 that makes it subject to the charge that it is opposition for opposition's sake?

Mr. Mike Thomas: You are making a meal of it. Get on with it.

Mr. Cryer: It is a major issue.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has a lot to learn if he is to speak on behalf of his constituents for the short time that he will remain a Member. Before he shouts from a sedentary position he should participate in the debate.
I was referring to what was said about take-up by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in its recent report. The Minister quoted figures for 1979. I want to know more about those figures. The Supplementary Benefits Commission said that because it could not yet give the 1979 figure—that was some time ago— it had to give estimates for 1978. But the Government's statistical collections have been changed. Some surveys are not now being done yearly. The Supplementary Benefits Commission said:
These estimates require a substantial commitment of staff and computer time and as movements from one year to the next are rarely of statistical significance we accepted that it should be sufficient to provide them every two years.
That is under the family expenditure survey. The report continued:
The immediate effect…would be to enable the Department to apply its resources to the analysis of the extremely valuable data obtained from the Family Finances Survey.

There was a meeting of the Social Services Select Committee recently. The Committee had given the Government a list of questions to answer. Question 16(b) related to recent and expected rates of take-up of social security benefit.
The Government answered that question and included the table for 1977. That table contains most of the figures quoted by hon. Gentlemen today. It states that in 1977 only 73 per cent. of pensioners were thought to be receiving supplementary benefit. That left 610,000 pensioners missing out on £100 million a year. That worked out at £3·10 a week that these 600,000 pensioners were missing out on. Those are 1977 figures.
The footnote to the table stated that estimates based on the 1979 family expenditure survey and the 1978 family finances survey would be available later in the year.
The Minister quoted from figures for 1979. If there are more up-to-date figures for the take-up of benefits—four years out of date is unsatisfactory for a debate—why cannot we have them? Why did not the Select Committee have them? If the Minister has them, I should be grateful if she would ensure that they are put in the Library as soon as possible.

Mr. Ennals: I intervene only because I am a member of the Select Committee, and the Select Committee met yesterday. We questioned civil servants in the Department on these very matters. It became clear that, as a result of legislation passed by the Government, there will be a substantial increase in the numbers who will be entitled, and will need, to claim supplementary benefit. Is it not obvious that the Government should accept the new clause because of the extra need?

Mr. Rooker: That is one reason for raising the issue. The Government are in the business of cutting benefits in real terms and of vastly increasing the numbers eligible for supplementary benefit. The Social Security (No. 2) Act last year shifted between 70,000 and 80,000 unemployed persons on to supplementary benefit. Therefore, the numbers eligible for supplementary benefit have increased.
Having referred to the up-to-dateness of the figures, I want now to refer to some of the surveys that have been mentioned. Many related to the attendance allowance. In February 1980 a question was asked regarding what research the Department had
undertaken into the numbers of people eligible to claim attendance allowance; and how much additional expenditure would be required if take-up of the benefit were equal to the numbers eligible.
The former Minister for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), said that no research had been undertaken. He then quoted figures from 1971 of the numbers thought to be eligible. That was about the time that the attendance allowance was introduced by the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
There is no evidence that there is any significant further number who are entitled but fail to claim the allowance." —[Official Report, 12 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 628.]
I have a summary of four local surveys by the Disability Alliance relating to the attendance allowance. In Harlow, 117 people were interviewed at a training centre. The outcome of the advice was known in 100 cases. At the start of the survey, 28 people were receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance. After the survey, 44 people were receiving it—an increase of 57 per cent.
In one project, at Leeds, at the start of the survey 10 people were receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance. After the survey, 14 people were receiving it. Again, that was a substantial increase in percentage terms.
Similar increases were recorded in a north Yorkshire project. I understand that there was also a significant project in Bradford.
I do not think that it is right to quote constituency cases from the Dispatch Box, but I know of one case where, five years after the attendance allowance had been granted, it was reviewed and although the circumstances had not changed, was withdrawn. I saw the form filled in by the doctor who visited my constituent at home. In answer to the question "What other relatives live in the house?", he had written "Father and brother" instead of "Husband and son." There were only three people in the house—father, mother and son. When constituents see that kind of mistake made by the doctor filling in the form, they become doubtful about the rest of the comments on the form relating to the capability of the claimant. I have taken this up not with the Minister's office, but with the Blackpool office, as I am sure she would expect me to do initially.
I want to refer briefly to the question of fraud and abuse, which has been touched on by all who have spoken in the debate. Indeed, the Minister kicked off with it. The charge that we make is that over-concentration on fraud and abuse—we do not condone fraud and abuse, as we have made clear—people are put off claiming benefit.
7.15 pm
The Secretary of State's hands are not clean on this issue. Obviously he has other duties today, because he has not attended the debate. On 21 November 1978, the right hon. Gentleman, three times in the space of four columns in Hansard—I shall put the quotations on record not because they are short, but because they need to be pointed out—said:
However, we all know that many of the people are not reached. We all know that there is a good deal of abuse…We must strengthen the investigatory machinery and curb abuses of the system…Because it is known that abuse is widespread, people are reluctant to find themselves labelled as scroungers." — [Official Report. 21 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 1137–40.]
Three times in four columns—about ten minutes of speech—from this Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman lent his name to that campaign.
The last point to which I want to refer concerns the feeling in the Department engendered by the campaign. There is an excellent quotation from a civil servant who is in charge—if not now, he was a year ago—of the fraud and abuse campaign. He is the same civil servant who was in charge when the Labour Party was in Government—Mr. Arthur Howell. I understand that he is in charge of C3, which I presume is the branch of the DHSS dealing with fraud and abuse. I want to quote from Mr. Howell talking of how his staff perceive their job. I shall give the source of the quotation when I have put it on record. He said:
When I came to this job, I must say I'd been brainwashed by the media into thinking that as far as special investigation went, anyone who took that kind of job on must be a rather quirky kind of character, and I think it's really much more earthy than that; that the job gives freedom from office routines, they have to work unpleasant hours but to some extent they can control those hours and get variety in them; there's the chance of travel and car allowances, let's face it, and perhaps most of all there's the chance which at that sort of level in the Department is maybe rarer that it should be of exercising one's own initiative and

judgment. I think all that kind of thing attracts people, and one of the things that pleases me most about the way certainly fraud work has developed in recent years, is that a few years ago it was a Cinderella subject and it was very difficult to persuade anyone to take the job up, now in the light of the improved commitment by the Department, fraud work is regarded as quite an interesting challenge and one iin which one will get a decent level of support up the line.
I would have hoped that it would not move from the Cinderella to the key post for advancement in the Department. Clearly the Cinderella part of the DHSS is the aspect of improving the take-up of benefits. Mr. Howell was speaking about a year ago on the "File on Four" programme on Radio 4 on Wednesday 12 March 1980.
For the avoidance of any doubt about our commitment, I want to add one final point. I hope that it will be seen in the positive spirit in which it is meant. It might create work for people; that is one of the problems. We know that our debates are recorded. We certainly hope that many of the points made in the debate will be used by the media tomorrow.
I suggest to any members of the public—old, disabled or whatever—who are in any doubt about their entitlement to benefit to get a piece of paper, to put their name and address clearly on it, and to write "Dear Sir, Will you check whether I am entitled to social security benefit?" Put it in an envelope marked "MP for area so-and-so"—it is not necessary to know the name of the constituency; the rough geographical area will do—and address it to the House of Commons, London SW1. We know that the excellent staff in the House of Commons Library and Post Office will track down that person's Member of Parliament, and then he or she can play a role in seeking to improve the uptake of benefits. That is what the new clause is all about—positive help to the hundreds of thousands of people who are not getting their legal entitlement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I shall speak for only a moment, merely to take up something that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said. At the beginning of his speech he made a promise that he has yet to fulfil. He promised me faithfully that he would give way. He never did. He congratulated the Minister on her reply and said what a good Minister she is. I agree. She failed to give way to me, but I make no complaint about that, because she made no promise to me.
I also want to correct a matter of fact. When the Minister was answering my hon. Friend she said that the Government had put in so many billions of pounds—whatever the sum was—to support the National Health Service and social welfare services. She went on to say that we who work and pay taxes pay for them. May I correct her? What she said was only partly true. We who work pay taxes—yes—but every man and woman in this country pays taxes, including the sick, the disabled and the unemployed, because—and here is the point—if they buy anything they now have double tax to pay. The war-disabled pensioner—with one leg or no legs—and those who do not have enough money to pay income tax pay a double tax virtually every time they purchase anything. That applies also to some children, for example, when they have a meal out. So the Minister should not say that it is the man who is working or paying income tax who pays. She should say that every man, woman and many children pay for these various services. They are paid for by everyone in the country.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 276

Division No. 183]
[7.23 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Adams, Allen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allaun, Frank
Ford, Ben


Alton, David
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'W'd)


Ashton, Joe
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey.)
Freud, Clement


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Homewood, William


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hooley, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Horam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carmichael, Neil
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craigen, J. M.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Crowther, J. S.
Kerr, Russell


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamborn, Harry


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dobson, Frank
McElhone, Frank


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone) 

Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dubs, Alfred
Maclennan, Robert


Dunn, James A.
McNally, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McTaggart, Robert


Eadie, Alex
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Magee, Bryan


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, (G'gow S'ton)


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Field, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Fitch, Alan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Fitt, Gerard
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Flannery, Martin
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)





Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Spriggs, Leslie


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Morton, George
Stoddart, David


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stott, Roger


Newens, Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Penhaligon, David
Tilley, John


Prescott, John
Tinn, James


Race, Reg
Torney, Tom


Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Richardson, Jo
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Watkins, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Robertson, George
Wellbeloved, James


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Welsh, Michael


Rooker, J. W.
White, Frank R.


Roper, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Whitlock, William


Ryman, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Sandelson, Neville
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sever, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Silverman, Julius
Woolmer, Kenneth


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton E)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alison, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Arnold, Tom
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Banks, Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Hon Anthony
Critchley, Julian


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Blaker, Peter
Dover, Denshore


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Elliott, Sir William


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Peter


Brittan, Leon
Eyre, Reginald


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fell, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bulmer, Esmond
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)






Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Mayhew, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mellor, David


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Monro, Hector


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morgan, Geraint


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Grist, Ian
Myles, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, Cecil


Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hordern, Peter
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sims, Roger


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John





Stradling Thomas, J.
Wall, Patrick


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Walters, Dennis


Tebbit, Norman
Ward, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Trippier, David
Whitney, Raymond


Trotter, Neville
Wickenden, Keith


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Viggers, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, B. (Perth)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

BENEFITS FOR THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

'The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed with special reference to the level and duration of unemployment benefit and the Level of supplementary benefit paid to the long-term unemployed, and this report shall be laid before Parliament.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 4—"Long-term benefits".

Mr. Alfred Morris: I commend these two important new clauses to the House. Yesterday, in Committee, we debated provisions in the Finance Bill that will help some of the wealthiest and most fortunate people in Britain. Today's debate is about people who are among the poorest and least fortunate in our society. It is a debate about the poverty and unmerited hardship of people who have been thrown out of work through no fault of their own. It is about the claims of the chronically sick and disabled who find themselves in what has now rightly become known as the invalidity trap.
New clause 3 calls for a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee on the financial implications of the long-term unemployed. Last July, the Secretary of State for Employment was reported by The Sunday Times as saying that he would make unemployment his next great priority. Since then there has been a further sharp and disastrous rise in unemployment, with the certainty of even worse figures to come. That rise has rapidly increased the numbers of the long-term unemployed. Moreover, the poverty that unemployment so often brings is worst among the long-term unemployed with children.
Last November, the Government deliberately chose to cut the incomes of such families. The cut in unemployment benefits and the new and less generous basis for the uprating of the children's additions inflicted a pay cut of £2·80 a week—£145·60 in a full year—on an unemployed family with two children. That was a shabby


and indefensible cut in living standards, imposed by a Government who have been consistently and extremely generous to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers.
As unemployment is forecast to rise to much higher levels, Ministers should recall the concern of the Supplementary Benefits Commission about
the prospect of so many children being raised in the atmosphere of social and material deprivation which unemployment so often brings.
Ministers should also recall the argument put forward in an editorial in The Times which said that the Government
has an obligation to protect the hardest hit groups from the consequences of the recession.
The long-term unemployed are incontrovertibly among the hardest hit groups. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is wrong that such people should continue to be discriminated against by the 5 per cent. abatement in benefits and by their exclusion from all the help that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit could confer.
As I said, new clause 3, the case for which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will be returning to if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calls only for a report to the House on the current financial difficulties of the long-term unemployed. In all conscience, that is a modest request which I hope some Conservative Members will support.
Among the long-term unemployed are large numbers of disabled people who passionately want to work. Many of them now feel that they are denied even the hope that they will ever work again. In the words of an ex-fitter, now registered blind, who is taking part in the people's march for jobs from Liverpool to London, he and many other disabled people feel that they will never again have
the right to work, the right to dignity and the right to provide for ourselves".
New clause 4 deals with another of the hardest hit groups, namely, those who because of long-term sickness or disability cannot work, and who must rely for their incomes on invalidity pensions. They find themselves painfully caught in the invalidity trap. The trap arises where invalidity pensioners have an income above that which would qualify them for supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate but which falls below what they would receive if they were eligible for supplementary benefit at the long-term rate. Since they do not qualify for the benefit at the ordinary rate, they can never qualify for it at the long-term rate. Their problem is unquestionably long-term and they have lower incomes than the Government themselves regard as necessary for people in their circumstances.
The Government keep changing their mind on the numbers of people now caught in the trap. To begin with, they said that there are 100,000 who are trapped. In Committee they said that the number was 70,000. In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on 15 April the Minister of State reverted to the figure of 100,000. A substantial number of widows are also affected and I speak also for them tonight. We are thus talking of deprivation on a very considerable scale.
It is also important to understand that the invalidity trap has worsened in recent years for three reasons. First, the gap between the ordinary and the long-term rates of supplementary benefit has widened. More people are,

therefore, caught in between. In October 1973, when the long-term rate was introduced, it was worth 10·3 per cent. more than the ordinary rate for a married couple. It is now worth 25·6 per cent. more. In money terms, the gap has widened from £1·20 to £8·85.
The second reason why the trap has worsened is that the 5 per cent. abatement of invalidity benefit last November reduced its value relative to the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and has in consequence increased the number of people caught in the trap. In fact, the Government first gave their estimate of 100,000 even before the 5 per cent. abatement.
Thirdly, the trap has worsened because before last November invalidity pensioners whose incomes were slightly above the supplementary benefit level were eligible for occasional lump sum payments under the supplementary benefits scheme to meet exceptional needs. Now such payments are confined to people restricted to weekly supplementary benefit. This restriction has increased the financial penalties of being caught in the trap. Again, it must be emphasised that the loss to an invalidity pensioner who is caught in the invalidity trap is much greater than the difference between the two rates of supplementary benefit. There is also the loss of weekly additions for heating and diet, free prescriptions and many other entitlements.
Many examples could be given of the effect of the invalidity trap on some of the most hard-pressed families in Britain today. I shall give just one example, that of the family of a man who is long-term sick. He and his wife, who live in Newham, get £54·35 invalidity benefit and £4·75 child benefit a week making £59·10 in all. Their rent is high but £9·20 of it is not covered by supplementary benefit as they have a working child and another child who is disabled and not in receipt of supplementary benefit living with them. Their supplementary benefit entitlement, including an additional requirement for central heating, is £57·60. They are £1·70 a week over the short-term supplementary benefit limit but will always be £7·15 a week worse off when compared with the long-term supplementary benefit rate. The difference, therefore, is a very punishing one for that family.
The Government will say that this is unfortunate—I think that "unpalatable" was the Secretary of State's word to describe the effect on such families of his cut in invalidity benefit—but that the cost of releasing them from the invalidity trap at £15 million a year is too high.
There are two answers that the Government must be given. The first is that the cost is a mere 7½ per cent. of the £200 million which the Government are saving by the provisions of clause 1 of this shoddy little Bill. Indeed, it is £1 million more than the amount saved in a full year on invalidity benefit alone in consequence of the 1 per cent. clawback. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was totally justified in calling that "peanuts" in Committee.
The second answer to the Government deserves to be put even more pointedly. How can Ministers who, on a single day, crammed £.1,400 million into the pockets of the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers, many of whom never have to lift a finger to "earn" their incomes, even begin to justify the denial of supplementary benefit on the long-term rate to the families of men who are long-term sick and disabled?
Or again, how can they possibly justify the quite brutal pay cut of 5 per cent. imposed on Britain's 650,000


invalidity pensioners? For the poor they cut social benefits; for the rich they cut taxes. That is their kind of equity. To govern is to choose and this Government have chosen to help the richest taxpayers at the cost of hurting some of the poorest of those who, because of sickness and disability, can no longer work.
New clause 4 is very much like the new clause that was moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). It has the same effect. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place tonight. He takes a close interest in these subjects and the hon. Gentleman's speech in Committee is one well worth reading by every Conservative Member. I honour him both for the boldness of his advocacy and the obvious sincerity of his feelings on this important matter.
The hon. Gentleman recalled that in the manifesto on which he stood for election to this House in May 1979, and on which every Minister in this Government was elected, it was pledged that the worst-off would be protected from the problems facing the country. He said:
Yet it appears that we are doing precisely the reverse of what we said in respect of the disabled." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G;24 March 1981, c. 232.]
That was his charge against the Government. It was a grave one. I hope that he will have the opportunity of documenting it further tonight. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that, instead of protecting the chronically sick and disabled, the Government have been doing precisely the reverse to large numbers of the most vulnerable of them.
The hon. Gentleman was much informed in his submission by the excellent brief prepared by Mr. John Wilson of Disability Alliance. John Wilson has won the respect of all of us who are concerned and have been concerned over the years, on both sides of the House, about the problems and needs of the disabled. I shall quote just three sentences from his brief:
The Conservative Government came to power pledged to improve benefits and services for disabled people. Instead it has cut them. Of all the measures which have affected the standard of living of disabled people, the 5 per cent. abatement has had the sharpest effect on the greatest number.
John Wilson and his colleagues, the Disablement Income Group and the all-party disablement group in this House, like many other organisations and groups, will be delighted if tonight we can win approval for the very modest requirements that are imposed by the new clauses. I most warmly commend them to the House.

Mr. Ennals: I warmly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in his condemnation of the Government's performance in relation to the disabled during this International Year of Disabled People.
I shall concentrate particularly on new clause 3, which I warmly welcome. When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which was the predecessor of the Social Security Advisory Committee, considered the matter and strongly recommended to me and to the Government that the long-term unemployed should receive long-term supplementary benefit. I warmly agreed. However, that was one of those battles with the Treasury which one inevitably lost at the time, when we succeeded in getting a higher level of child benefit than the Conservative Party was prepared to concede. We win some battles and lose others.
The issue today is far more important than it was two years ago when I was Secretary of State. There are two

reasons. The first is the Government's decision to cut back the level of benefit for the unemployed and to tax the increases in benefit, whatever those benefits might be. Those issues were discussed earlier this week on the Finance Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I opposed the proposals and we were defeated on each one.
The unemployed are not only much greater in number today, but they are poorer than they have been for several decades. As a result of the action taken by the Government, the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed on supplementary benefit, are suffering much more than they were before.
I wish to develop the second argument. It concerns the massive increase in the number of long-term unemployed. In January 1979 in the United Kingdom 334,000 people had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks, or a year. There were 246,000 people who had been unemployed for between 26 weeks and 52 weeks—between six months and a year. They were moving towards long-term unemployment if one assumes that the long-term unemployed had been out of work for more than a year.
That was bad enough two years ago. However, today the situation is dramatically worse. In January 1981 an extra 100,000 people had been unemployed for over 52 weeks. The actual figure was 430,000. The number of those unemployed for between 26 and 52 weeks had leapt by more than 200,000 in that two-year period. The total number in that category was 460,000. Therefore, if one takes the two figures together, in January 1979 480,000 people had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks. The situation has become substantially worse since January 1981, which is the latest time for which I have figures. The figure was not 480,000, but 890,000. Therefore, it has nearly doubled.
Therefore, if we are concerned with the long-term unemployed, the House must recognise that we are now dealing with a dramatically different problem from the one with which we dealt before. In our unemployment figures we were often dealing with people who were moving from one job to another. Sometimes it took them a considerable time to do so because they wanted to find the right job. Now the right jobs do not exist. The people who now become unemployed to a large extent become permanently unemployed. It will be found from the statistics that that happens in almost every age group, especially in two age groups—the young, that is, those up to the age of 30, particularly young parents, and older people over the age of 50 whose expectations of getting a job are small.
The longer the unemployment figures remain at the present level, the higher will be the proportion of people who are long-term unemployed. My fear and sad expectation is that those figures will continue to rise substantially above the present figure of 2½ million. It may be more than a year before we see any improvement in the unemployment figures. Whatever the increase in the present number of unemployed, even if it were to stay at the present figure, we must expect that the number of people who will be long-term unemployed will be rising month by month. Those are the people we are discussing in the new clause.
Many people who have become unemployed are seeking jobs and failing to get them, even at a much reduced level of income. I was horrified to see that the Department of Employment circulates a form to the unemployed which contains the following question:
What is the lowest income you are prepared to accept?


It is appalling that people are being asked what is the smallest figure they would accept in order to take a job, regardless of their experience and background.
That is a problem in my constituency in Norwich. We have seen an increase of 85 per cent. in unemployment in the past two years. That has shown a great increase in the number of long-term unemployed. The city is not used to unemployment, and it now has unemployment at a level which is not only unacceptable but far higher than it has ever had in its history.
The plight of the unemployed is much worse. Any savings which they may have made over their years of employment are likely to have been used up purely for survival, particularly because the level of benefit has been reduced by the Government. The Government have cut benefit increases to below the level of inflation. Now the benefits are to be taxed and, furthermore, those people are to suffer a delay in their tax rebates, which is another disgraceful action which has been taken this week.
There is now real hardship among the long-term unemployed such as we have not known for the past 50 years. The least the Government could do is to show some awareness of the massive human problem which has largely been created by Government policies. At least it would be something if they were to accept the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe.
The Social Security Advisory Committee should be asked sympathetically to consider the problem and to report to the House. We would then be better informed. I would be staggered to hear any serious arguments from Conservative Members on why that newly established committee, which is to succeed the independent, forward-looking and often critical Supplementary Benefits Commission, should not be given that vital task.

8 pm

Mr. Jack Ashley: I endorse the views and sentiments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). We are concerned about the unemployed and disabled, who are the most vulnerable in our society. Neither new clause asks for the moon. They ask for information that may lead to additional cash being given to those in greatest need.
Both my right hon. Friends referred to the plight and the poverty of the long-term unemployed. Last Monday in Stoke-on-Trent I joined the people's march for jobs. There has been much talk of what the people on the march are like, what they feel, what they do and who they are. I talked to them. They are men and women of great dignity, who feel deep anger at what they see as the Government's maltreatment. We all argue about who or what is responsible for unemployment. But an interesting comment was made when the march stopped in my constituency. Among the many speeches, the best was by the rector of Stoke-on-Trent. He delivered a devastating indictment of Government policy, and one comment stuck in my mind. He said that the Prime Minister said that she had no magic wand, which she has not, but she does have a Cabinet, and it is the Cabinet that should take action about unemployment. How true that is. The Government must accept responsibility for the consequences of unemployment.
Dealing first with the new clause 3, the long-term unemployed are in greatest need, and it is illogical and unfair to deny them the long-term rate of benefit. The number of long-term unemployed is growing. It is estimated at nearly 900,000, and if the trend continues it will soon be 1 million. The Government have a responsibility to do something for these people. My constituency has always had high unemployment, but in the last year unemployment has doubled. In constituencies not used to unemployment there is a deep feeling that the growing army of long-term unemployed should receive long-term supplementary benefit.
Turning to new clause 4, invalidity pensioners are in a Catch-22 situation. They cannot qualify for the normal rate of supplementary benefit and they cannot qualify for the long-term rate. That position is untenable. The anomaly was brought home vividly by David Donnison when he was running the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The argument goes on ad infinitum. The number involved may be 90,000 or 100,000—I see it as a full Wembley stadium, watching, say, a poor Welsh or Scottish side, say 90,000 of disabled people who are being denied the long-term supplementary benefit, or a full stadium watching an English side could be as many as 100,000. It is inexcusable that so many people are denied the benefit.
If people are suffering because they are disabled or unemployed for a long time it is indefensible and anomalous to refuse them the benefit. It is a plain and simple point. In Committee, the Government produced a disingenuous and preposterous argument about taxes that would be later introduced. Their argument cannot be sustained.
We are not asking for an immediate payment. The new clauses ask only for a report. There could not be a more modest proposal before the House. The Government should be condemned if they reject it.
I thought that I might be speaking after the admirable hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). I shall not embarrass him with too many compliments. I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always admire his views. I shall not speak for him, but hon. Members on both sides of the House sympathise with the aims of the new clauses. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.

Mr. Race: I shall try to be as brief as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I wish to deal primarily with new clause 3, which concerns the long-term unemployed. The Government can and should take action. Our request is modest. We should like a report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) made it clear that the number of long-term unemployed is rapidly increasing. In January 1981, 10 per cent. of the under-25s had been unemployed for over 52 weeks. In the 25-to-54 age group it was 20 per cent. and for the over-55s it was 37 per cent. Young men and women just out of school suffer unemployment, but it gets worse as people get older.
All my right hon. and hon. Friends want the long-term unemployed to get the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. The request should command respect and support from the House, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will implement it. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's recent report said in paragraph 3.20:


We regard this discrimination against the unemployed and their families as wrong, and its removal is our highest priority for the improvement of the supplementary benefits scheme.
That is what the Supplementary Benefits Commission said before it was disbanded. I hope that that is also the Government's principal objective in improving the supplementary benefits scheme. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is, and when the Government will introduce the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for the long-term unemployed.
Many of the unemployed do not receive any benefit. At the last count, 291,000 people did not receive supplementary benefit or national insurance unemployment benefit. That is 15·4 per cent. of the total number of unemployed at that time. Those people are in desperate straits. Some of them are among the long-term unemployed, but others are not. However, we must ensure that all the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, receive a State benefit in order to support themselves. There is nothing worse than a shoddy income, or no income at all, if a person is desperately looking for a job.
The long-term unemployed seem to do worse than others in terms of receiving additions to their benefits. For example, offical Government statistics show that only 6 per cent. of the unemployed receive exceptional circumstances additions to their benefits, compared to 20 per cent. of widows and 33 per cent. of the sick and disabled. Those are the most recent figures that I could find. They come from the Government's 1972 social security statistics. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has more up-to-date information. It would seem that their ability to claim additional benefits is more restricted. Why is it that DHSS offices do not seem to give the same proportion of exceptional circumstances additions to the unemployed?
The problem of the long-term unemployed cannot be separated from the climate in which the Government operate. In 12 months, the Government have increased unemployment by 65 per cent. During the same period unemployment in OECD countries has increased by only 15 per cent. The Government have created mass unemployment. Hundreds and thousands of people will not be able to find jobs in the forseeable future. The Government's policy on social security means that they are attacking the benefits of the unemployed.
Last year there was a cut of 5 per cent. in unemployment benefit as a result of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980. The phased abolition of earnings-related supplement has also been announced. It is to be abolished in January 1982. On average, that provides £8·80 per week additional supplement to the national insurance standard rate of unemployment benefit. From some Government quarters we have heard the exraordinary suggestion that unemployment registration should become voluntary. I hope that the Minister will make a statement tonight on the relation between that and the accrual and payment of benefit.
8.15 pm
The climate is also being influenced by the activities of some officers in some DHSS offices and by activities in other parts of the social security system. For example, some of the long-term unemployed attend a DHSS reception centre in Camberwell. Recently a "Nationwide" reporter went to that reception centre and tried to obtain admission. When a long-term unemployed person who is

down and out goes to the reception centre, he is deloused. All a man's clothes are taken from him. The "Nationwide" reporter had all his clothes taken from him and was put through the delousing treatment. While he was naked, he was interviewed by a DHSS official about his entitlement to benefit.
If that is the way in which people are treated, hon. Members should ensure that immediate remedial action is taken. I am sure that such practices are abhorrent to hon. Members. We should get rid of them as quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister will tell us what action has been taken as a result of that "Nationwide" report to improve and humanise the degrading policies and practices of that reception centre.
The problem of the long-term unemployed will not go away. Because of the Government's policies, it will get worse. We must ensure that we pay the long-term unemployed the benefits to which they are entitled. Eventually, we must find them jobs through the recreation of full employment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like other hon. Members, I shall try to be brief. I hope that the Minister will brush aside the new clauses and announce that he intends to do as we have asked. After all, we do not need a review, because we know that an overwhelming case can be made for allowing such people to move quickly on to the long-term rates. However, if the Minister cannot concede that, perhaps he will tell the House why there is a long-term rate and a short-term rate of benefit. Perhaps he will carefully' explain the principle behind those rates and whether I have misunderstood it.
The two rates are supposed to be the minimum levels necessary in order for a person to keep himself and his family at a reasonable standard. I understand that if someone is on such rates for a short period he will have to meet certain items of expenditure, such as food, rent, mortgage payments and heating and lighting bills. However, it is possible to put off the payment of many other items for the time being. For example, for a while they can put off replacing their clothing, bedding and most household necessities. I understand that that is why the short-term rate is less than the long-term rate. It is accepted that, after a while, people can no longer put off the replacement of clothes and essential household items. Therefore, there are short-term and long-term rates.
Under the old system a person had to wait two years before moving on to the long-term rate. Many people felt that that was unreasonable. I welcome the fact that the time has been shortened to 12 months, but if that is the principle behind the short-term and long-term rates, why is it that some people cannot move on to the long-term rate regardless of how long they have been on the short-term rate? It is impossible for the unemployed to defer for ever expenditure on certain items. Perhaps the Minister assumes that such people have other sources of income, or perhaps he believes that they should live below the minimum standard.
New clause 4 refers to the people who are fortunate enough to receive a little more than the short-term supplementary rate. However, because they are never deemed to be on the short-term rate, they never move to the long-term rate. Can they defer for ever items of expenditure which are taken into account for people on the long-term rate? Of course they cannot. That type of


invalidity benefit means that the recipients lose benefit for ever. Will they never be able to replace clothing and major household equipment?
To wait six months before transferring from the short-term to the long-term rate is unreasonable but to have to wait for ever is impossible. I hope that the Government will do something about that quickly and not wait for a review.

Mr. Tom Benyon: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. I referred to the subject on 24 March in Standing Committee. I shall not recycle what I said then. People who are interested in what I said can read the Official Report.
I thank John Wilson of Disability Alliance for the information that he supplied to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his kind remarks. Being the honest chap and quivering flower that I am in the face of praise, I cannot accept that I have a monopoly of concern on this subject. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), have excellent and long histories of working for the disabled.
This is the International Year of Disabled People and it would be wrong for pressure groups outside, and constituents who write to us and ask us what we are doing this year, to look solely to the Government to discharge obligations to the disabled. Before people ask anybody what they are doing this year they should ensure that they are doing something. It is far too easy for Governments to accept responsibilities for all elements in society. All citizens should take responsibility, not just in the International Year of Disabled People, but next year when another fashionable subject will take over. The problems of disabled people will not have disappeared next year. If the recession lasts much longer their position will become steadily worse.
The definition of the invalidity trap has already been given. Between 70,000 and 100,000 people are caught in that trap. The disabled unemployed are the worst-off in our society. The invalidity trap has existed for a long time. I do not wish to make a party political point. I concede that the invalidity trap has become much worse in the last two years. The financial circumstances of the disabled have fallen behind other sectors because other sectors have used pressure groups to win more of our resources. The unemployed disabled who fall into the invalidity trap are several pounds a week worse off.
Supplementary benefit acts as a passport for many handicapped people and many people on supplementary benefit are, as far as transport, heating, rent, rates and prescriptions are concerned, to name but a few, not only worse off in financial terms but in indirect terms. What has recently made the people in the invalidity trap worse off has been the 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. derating in the invalidity benefit. It is hoped that the position of the disabled, who fall into this invidious category, will be regarded by the Government as having the highest possible priority when resources permit.
I concede that we are operating in a very difficult climate. Not only are we working against a backcloth of the world recession, but there are the much-vaunted cuts

which our Government are said to have undertaken. When one analyses the figures across the board one sees that we are spending more in every area. We should not look at one area where the Government have not come up to scratch but at their whole performance as far as the National Health Service is concerned. We have spent considerably more since May 1979 and honoured our electoral pledge that the National Health Service as a whole would not fall behind but that standards would be maintained.
Before we criticise the Government too harshly in this area we should remember that we have 1,000 more doctors, and 8,000 more nurses and that we have cut hospital waiting lists by 100,000. It would be wrong to home in on the Government and criticise them on one aspect.
I repeat that the record of the Government as far as the disabled are concerned leaves a lot to be desired. I have been reassured by my hon. Friend that when resources permit he will regard this as having the highest priority.
To Labour Members I say that we just cannot spend our way out of problems. They have suggested occasionally that we might do that, but we cannot spend our way out of recession and the options, if they were ever open to us, are certainly open to us no longer. We have heard quotations from one of the then Prime Minister's speeches to the Labour Party conference in 1976, which we must all take to heart.

Mr. Race: It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Mr. Benyon: I am grateful for that comment, made by the hon. Member from a sedentary position. Nevertheless I am sure that our Government echo those sentiments. We said in our manifesto that we would protect the worse-off from the worst of the problems facing the country. With regard to the invalidity trap, we have not done that and that trap is getting worse. I used the amendment I tabled in Committee to ventilate the problem. That has been done both in Committee and in this debate this afternoon. We listen with expectation to what my hon. Friend has to say on the subject. I am sure that he will reassure us that the priority with which he regards this is getting higher by the hour.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) says that we are in a difficult climate. The truth is that the Government are making that climate much more difficult as each day passes. They have no policy as far as the long-term unemployed are concerned other than to increase the number who happen to find themselves out of a job for more than 12 months. I am not going to repeat the statistics which have been mentioned, other than to say that the United Kingdom is now in the unenviable position within the European Community, with the exception of the Irish Republic, of having more people out of a job for longer than 12 months. Belgium is trying to catch up quickly with us, but that is not the way in which the Government should be pursuing employment policies. From what has emerged from the Manpower Services Commission in recent years, it is clear that no meaningful measures are being taken on the scale that is required to deal with the growing problem of long-term unemployment.
8.30 pm
I notice the presence of the hard man from Bridlington, who served as a member of the Select Committee on


Employment until taking over as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister. I remind the Minister—in case the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) does not tell him about this daily—that the problem of the longterm unemployed is becoming so serious that I doubt very much whether any Government will be able to eradicate it within the next decade.
One of the problems about recruitment is that employers are getting so many applicants that they can afford to accept people who are either in a job and want to change or have recently left or lost a job. Once a person has been out of a job for more than six or nine months, and certainly more than 12 months, it becomes exceedingly difficult to get accepted. I have had some experience not only in the trade union movement but in personnel management. That was in a much better employment climate than we are operating in today. Most recruiting officers would tend to play safe and would therefore take the person who has a recent employment record to go by.

Mr. Race: Is my hon. Friend aware that the professional and executive register sends a newspaper to those who are on the register? The most recent edition stated that the average number of interviews gone through by people before they get a job is now 21.

Mr. Craigen: Yes, I would accept that. The brunt of the problem in my constituency has been borne by the unskilled and the semi-skilled, although there is growing evidence that many professional groups within the community will now be faced with the prospect of serious long-term unemployment.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). I did not interrupt him to ask what his constituency's unemployment percentage was, but I suspect that it is a lot less than that of mine. His contribution reminded me of a Conservative Back Bencher who said recently, "I have 8 per cent. unemployment in my constituency." I thought, "Those were halcyon days in many parts of the country when the rate was only 8 per cent.".
Perhaps the chickens are coming home to roost. Perhaps the Home Counties are beginning to experience some of the problems that we have had in Wales, Merseyside, Tyneside and the West of Scotland and other parts of the country. Perhaps political pressure will be exerted to do something to reduce long-term unemployment.
I hope that the Minister will accept these two modest proposals. He will be a very mean-minded man if he does not do so, because they are not asking him to do very much. However, being a politician, he will probably wonder, "What happens if the report is not to my liking?". I suspect that it will be a very unpalatable report. None the less, I trust that he will accept it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) referred to the moves that are afoot to introduce voluntary registration for unemployment. The recent report on the payment of unemployment benefit, published jointly by the DHSS and the Department of Employment, makes frightening reading on how the present Government will handle people who find themselves out of a job. There has also been a review of statistical services in the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, from which it appears that we shall now be

excluding severely disabled people from the unemployment statistics, along with various other groups of people. The Minister will be able to say, "We do not know what the precise figures are". He will plead ignorance as an excuse for inaction.
I hope that these two new clauses will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. James Dempsey: I have heard from time to time statements from Conservative Members of Parliament to the effect that the monopoly of compassion is not on the Opposition side of the House. They say that they also deeply care. If they do, this is their opportunity to demonstrate that care and conviction by approving the two clauses, which have been described as modest proposals—as an effort to assist and protect the unemployed and, of course, the sick. In areas of the West of Scotland where we have unemployment, we do not talk in terms of people being unemployed for six months, but for one year, two years, three years, four years and five years. In the Monklands area I have an engineering training association which has 65 membership companies and not one company took on a single apprentice at the beginning of the session. That is how grave the unemployment situation is in the part of the country where I come from. We are appealing on behalf of these unemployed tonight.
My hon. Friends have talked about short-term and long-term benefits. I would like to talk about some who do not have either, simply because a ruling was introduced by the social security authorities that meant that a standard charge was levied against all adults in the home, working or not. That has meant that thousands of families are now ineligible to receive supplementary benefits, and, as a consequence, ineligible to receive fringe benefits. I would have developed this argument extensively if my new clause dealing with aids for the partially sighted had been selected. I shall not do so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that to do so would incur your displeasure. I have no intention of doing that this evening but I feel that I must mention that this is one of the most important considerations.
Where are the resources to be found by unemployed people to provide the essentials of ordinary living? It simply cannot be done on standard rate unemployment benefit. That is why the case has been argued for short term benefits for many who have now been declared ineligible and for long term benefits for most, because of the length of time that they are registering for employment, especially in parts of the West of Scotland.
Quite apart from the unemployment problem, and the tragedy of the lack of work in these areas, I am always deeply concerned about those who are also in receipt of invalidity benefits. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some of the serious problems that arise. If unemployment and other benefits are cut by 5 per cent. it means a loss of £145 per annum for a husband and wife and two children. I should like the Minister to meet the housewives and to hear from them how they will find the resources to meet the rise in prices.
One of my saddest experiences arises from a recipient of invalidity benefit. The person I have in mind has had two major operations for malignancy. Although he receives invalidity benefit he has to pay for his medical prescriptions. A person in receipt of invalidity benefit will be told that his income exceeds the supplementary benefit


scale and therefore he has to pay a proportion of the cost of spectacles, teeth and other aids that may be required and, most shameful of all, prescription charges. The gentleman I am talking about, having had two major operations, has to pay £5 out of his invalidity benefit for five items that have been prescribed by his doctor.

Mr. Race: Does my hon. Friend recall that last year the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) moved a new clause to the Health Services Bill which sought to exempt invalidity beneficiaries from prescription charges, and that Conservative Members of Parliament went through the Lobby to defeat that proposal? Does not that show that they have no compassion for invalids?

Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that welcome and helpful intervention. It demonstrates unquestionably that on that issue Conservative Members of Parliament have no caring convictions and no sympathy for these people. They are the very individuals with whom I am concerned. Imagine the erosion in the benefit received by that sick and injured person who has to pay £5 from his invalidity benefit to obtain the medicines that the medical profession regards as indispensable to give him comfort.
I am not impressed by the argument that when the Government have the resources they will do something about it. We have the resources; we do not have to wait for them. Budgets have shown convincingly that the nation's resources are being unfairly distributed in the interests of the well-off and to the detriment of the needy. On Monday I listened to the debate on the Finance Bill concerning capital transfer tax. Millions of pounds in tax concessions were handed to the well-off landlords and landowners.
When I was pleading for an increase in the earnings of blind workers in the proceedings on a previous Budget I was told that the country could not afford it. Yet the Government have reduced the taxes of wealthy people from 83p to 60p in the pound. They are handing that money to those wealthy people on a plate. I understand that the total cost in one year is £1,500 million. Why not take back some of that money and give it to the unemployed, the invalidity pensioners, the sick and the needy? They are being discriminated against. I hope that we shall record our opposition to a fiscal policy that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Mr. Rossi: All the speeches in this debate have been commendably brief, and I shall try to emulate those hon. Members who have preceded me. However, I have been taken a little off balance because I thought that the main thrust of the Opposition speeches would have concentrated on these two sensitive areas of unemployment benefit and the invalidity trap. That is not the case.
I shall try to deal with the questions that have been put to me. As is their right, the Opposition chose to concentrate most of their fire on whether or not we should chase up people who are defrauding the social security system, and we spent most of the afternoon discussing matters of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] Well, the record is there for all to see. I have been here all afternoon and I have heard every speech.
These two new clauses do not call upon the Government to take any positive action at all in respect of these two areas of real concern. All they require is that, in one case, we ask for a report and, in the other, that we bring forward a report within a particular time limit.
New clause 3 asks the Secretary of State to
request the Social Security Advisory Committee to report on the adequacy of current benefit provision for the long-term unemployed
and so on. We discussed this matter in Committee. Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that I replied to that aspect by saying that it would be undesirable if my right hon. Friend started to tell an advisory committee what it should or should not do. It must be independent, survey the whole social security scene, come to its own conclusion and lay down a programme of work for itself. It would be wrong for us to suggest a programme of piecemeal, ad hoc reports.
Unfortunately,the hon. member for Refrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) did not serve on the Committee at the time because he was unwell, and we missed him. Had he done so, he would have heard me say that of its own violition the advisory committee has embarked upon a study of this matter and would be reporting in due course. Therefore, there is no need for the clause at all. The work is already in hand, and the report will become available. That is well known to those hon. Members who served on the Committee.
Labour Members expressed some anxiety about the length of time that it would take before the advisory committee's first annual report saw the light of day. They will recall that I undertook to draw the attention of Sir Arthur Armitage to what was said in Committee. I did so. As a result, an item about the timing of the advisory committee's annual reports appeared on the committee's April agenda, and members of the committee had copies of our remarks before them.
I am glad to tell the House that the advisory committee hopes to produce its first and subsequent annual reports in time for the Budget debates and succeeding discussions. I hope that those remarks are reassuring.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The House will welcome that statement. What opinion have the Government given the advisory committee so that it may be aware of the Government's view when considering this matter?

Mr. Rossi: Ministers and officials are in constant touch with the advisory committee and Sir Arthur has regular meetings with us. If the committee wants to know what Government thinking is, that is immediately conveyed to it during the discussions among members of the committee, Sir Arthur Armitage, Ministers and officials. The committee in due course will make known its views, which will be its views and not the Government's views.
I hope that on that basis the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will accept that new clause 3 is no longer necessary, as the work is already well in hand. The Secretary of State does not have to call for the report because it will be prepared. It would establish an undesirable precedent for my right hon. Friend to suggest to an independent committee what his views are on work that the committee should or should not undertake or the areas that it should or should not investigate. I hope that the House will not press the new clause.
The new clause is not concerned simply with a report but with the problems of the long-term unemployed. The


Government are aware of the importance of benefit provision for those who are long-term unemployed at a time when, regrettably—as the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said—numbers are increasing in that group. Supplementary benefit has been exempted from the savings that have had to be made in the contributory unemployment benefit. Therefore, the position of the long-term unemployed has been correspondingly safeguarded.
I know that that answer does not entirely satisfy the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) because he questioned the difference between the long-term and the short-term rates. He explained to me what he thought was the underlying philosophy of the distinction between the two rates. His logic is impeccable. He is correct in his analysis of the reason for the difference.
The long-term rate is a recognition that, after being on supplementary benefit for some time, claimants can be expected to have extra expenses over and above their normal day-to-day living expenses provided by the short-term scale rates. As pensioners are invariably long-term claimants, they receive the long-term rate from the beginning of their claim. However, all other claimants, except the unemployed, become entitled to the long-term rate after one year. That includes the long-term sick and single parents.
The House will recall that last November the Government improved the supplementary benefits scheme, especially for families with children. The number of children's scale rates were reduced from five to three and in merging the rates the higher rate in each case became the new rate. Families with children under five years or aged 11 and 12 gained from that change. Householders with under-fives are now entitled automatically to the heating addition of £1·40 a week.
The qualifying period for the higher rate was reduced from two years to one. Although that did not affect the children's rates directly, many families benefited by up to £5·85 a week as a result. Among those particularly helped by this measure were lone parents, who also benefited from the introduction of a tapered earnings disregard which left them up to £6 a week better off. We estimate that the majority of the half million who gained up to several pounds a week as a result of the November 1980 changes were families with children.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that the Tories have concern for those who are badly off and, within the resources available, do their best to make provision where it is most needed.
I accept that there is an argument for extending the long-term rates to the unemployed, but the change would cost more than £100 million at current benefit rates. We cannot contemplate that until we get the economy right.
Our predecessors were aware of this problem. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) put a question on this matter to the then Minister for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), to which the answer was:
National insurance unemployment benefit extends for 12 months. A person unemployed for longer than 12 months must rely on supplementary benefit, but this is never paid to the unemployed at the higher long-term rate. It is a high priority to improve benefits for the long-term unemployed, but such improvements are costly. It would cost £35 million a year at constant prices to extend the long-term rate of supplemetary benefit to those on supplementary benefit for two years. Giving

all people under pension age the long-term rate after one year would cost £85 million a year at constant prices."—[Official Report, 6 March 1979; Vol. 963, c. 603.]

Mr. Ashley: The Minister is right to criticise the Labour Government for doing nothing about this issue. We are guilty of having done nothing. However, that is no argument for doing nothing now. Both the Labour and Conservative Governments are wrong. There can be no justification. Why can we not have a change now?

Mr. Rossi: I am not criticising the Labour Government for having done nothing in this area.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are.

Mr. Rossi: The problem that has been presented to me on the Floor of the House relating to the long-term rate benefit for the unemployed is not new. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have looked at it and wanted to deal with it, but there has been a financial obstacle. In March 1979 the cost was £85 million a year. Today, the cost at constant prices is over £100 million a year. The problem has increased; it has not gone away. Larger numbers are involved. We are not arguing about that. That is the situation in which the Government find themselves, as did the Labour Government. We accept that the problem needs to be corrected as soon as resources become available. They were not available to the Labour Administration, and they are not yet available to us.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister at least admit that the Government have made the position infinitely worse by the 5 per cent. abatement? Indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) emphasised that the problem had been compounded by the Government's actions.

Mr. Rossi: I do not know to what extent I am in order in going into the 5 per cent. abatement, because it was discussed in great depth on Monday in Committee on the Finance Bill. It was pointed out that all parties agreed that these were taxable benefits and that they should be brought into tax.
At that time the economic difficulties had to be recognised and savings made. Those benefits that ought to be taxed were subject to the 5 per cent. abatement. The whole matter was gone into.
9 pm
One realises why this happened, and it is not because anyone takes pleasure in doing it. One wants the matter to be put right as quickly as possible, but we have to get the economy right first. The money has to be there before we can spend it. That is all that I am saying. That is the problem that faced the last Government with this long-term rate, and the same problem faces this Government.
As things improve—the Prime Minister says that they are beginning to improve—we shall be able to deal 'with these problems, which have perplexed and bedevilled both Administrations. They are not to be laid simply at the door of this Administration because we are convenient Aunt Sallies for Opposition Members. We must maintain a sense of fairness and proportion, and recognise the real difficulties that now face the country.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) asked me several questions. He asked about the registration and benefit entitlement. The Rayner unemployment study proposes that the registration should no longer be a condition of benefit entitlement for adults. It is a proposal


only, but if it were adopted in due course by the Government, after having considered the administrative requirements that would be needed to put it into effect, it would not in any way diminish benefit entitlement. Entitlement will depend on being capable and available for work. The registration condition is, as Rayner argued, more symbolic than significant.
On the question of reception treatment, I did not have the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman had to see the Nationwide programme, so I do not know the details. I shall look into the matter. I do not like answering such questions off the cuff, so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. If what he said is true, I would say that there is a prima facie case for disciplinary action to be taken against the official concerned. However, I do not know the whole story. I only know what the hon. Gentleman has said. Therefore, it would be wrong for me to prejudge the matter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned also the numbers of unemployed people who are registered as such but who, apparently, are not in receipt of a benefit. That is because fluctuating groups of people come on the register and begin to get benefits. Some claims have been made but not settled. There is a transitional period while they are registered but not yet in benefit. There are people who are disqualified for a period of six weeks. There are the people who were formerly self-employed and with resources above the supplementary benefit level. There are those in receipt of payments, which means that benefit is not immediately payable—for example, compensation for loss of wages. If all those groups are added together, there is an apparent gap in the figures, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
On that basis, therefore, I hope that the House will recognise that new clause 3 is both unnecessary and inappropriate in the circumstances.
New clause 4 concerns the anomaly of the so-called invalidity trap. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has championed thatcause for some time. He has raised the matter in Committee and also on the Floor of the House. He has been supported by Opposition Members. It concerns him deeply and he is never slow to bring it to the attention of Ministers. I agree that it is an anomaly that needs correction. Figures have been bandied about the Chamber. Our best estimate is that about 100,000 would become entitled to the long-term rate after one year on incapacity benefit. On current levels of take-up, about 70,000 might be expected to claim. At November 1980 benefit rates the annual cost would be £15 million a year. The additional administrative costs to my Department are estimated at 250 additional staff in the first year, with about 150 additional staff in subsequent years.
The Government are well aware of the problem. Only last November the qualifying period for long-term rates was reduced from two years to one year. At the same time we relaxed the rules to enable 16- and 17-year-old recipients of non-contributory invalidity pension to count periods in receipt of that benefit towards the qualifying period for long-term rates. That was a modest, but nevertheless indicative step, which showed our attitude towards the problem, and an earnest of our good intention to deal with the matter when resources become available.
We need no prompting from Opposition Members to examine the problem. However, our resources are limited

and before we can decide upon such a change, with the sum of money that would be involved, we must first generate the wealth to pay for it. When the economy is on a sound footing once more we can deal with matters that we regard as of priority.

Mr. Buchan: I shall be brief because we have made pledges to the House about the brevity of the debate, and we shall have another piece of the action tomorrow. I want to make one or two points about the Minister's speech. I do not know whether I should, in all honour, be expected to be brief following the Minister's opening remarks that he had expected us to concentrate on new clauses 3 and 4 and that we had, by inference, wasted our time in dealing with aspects of fraud and other matters.
That was not true. It was an extremely important debate which covered a wide range of matters. It managed to elicit the attitudes and the differences on both sides of the House. It was a revealing debate. We had to vote because we received little change from the Government. The debate was both necessary and timely. We apologise only for having spent less time on this debate, not that we spent more time on the previous debate.
There was little recognition in the Minister's speech that we were dealing with 2½ million unemployed—and, in real terms, we have reached the 3 million mark by any count. That did not seem to enter the Minister's consciousness. One reason for the anger on the Labour Benches is the speed with which the unemployment figure has been reached—an additional 1 million in one year. That is largely because of their own actions. Despite that, the Minister wishes me to accept blame along with the Labour Administration. I resigned from that Administration but their actions were not causing the then unemployment. That is the great difference.
In November 1980 there were 825,000 unemployed who were relying on supplementary benefit. There are probably nearly 1 million in that position now. They are either receiving unemployment benefit plus supplementary benefit or supplementary benefit only. We have now put nearly 1 million directly on to means testing. That is the gravamen of the charge.
I was in a mood to accept the Minister's suggestion on new clause 3. I welcome some of his comments. I think that some of his remarks stemmed from the pressure to which he was subjected in Committee. I am sorry that I missed the proceedings in Committee. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I am now a good deal fitter. I suggest to everyone that they undergo an arterial operation as it cheers one up enormously. I have read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, and I sympathise with the Minister. It seemed that he was not making very good weather of piloting the Bill through the Committee. I understand that he had a bad case to present. I was tempted to say that we would accept what he had to say on new clause 3. However, we shall be voting on the new clause not merely because we seek the report but because he has made it clear that no matter what report comes forward from the Social Security Advisory Committee he is in a mind to reject it.

Mr. Rossi: No.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has already said—

Mr. Rossi: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman has already said that it will cost too much. He tells us that it will cost £100 million to bring short-term benefit on to the long-term rate. What is that but rejecting in advance anything that might flow from the report?

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I did not say that we would reject the report—far from it. We shall study it in the greatest depth and give it the greatest consideration. We shall do what we can to implement it, whatever recommendations it may contain. I said that at this stage we are not in a position to do what we have been asked to do—this is what I was saying about the £100 million—any more than the Labour Government were able to act when it would have cost £85 million in 1979. That is not to say that we shall not be in a position to implement the report's recommendations when we receive it. We shall have to consider the issue when we read the report. We have not prejudged it as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Buchan: We usually say "I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave way". On this occasion I am glad that I gave way. The answer has completely justified and three-line Whip underlined what I had to say. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government will not pay the £100 million today no matter what the report contains. He does not mean that it will be paid tomorrow either. He made a bad opening, he has made a bad defence and I regret to say that he made a bad intervention. We shall vote against new clause 3.

Mr. Rossi: Against it?

Mr. Buchan: We shall vote for it. The hon. Gentleman is getting me in the same state as he has been in himself. We shall vote in favour of it despite our earlier inclination to use it as a trial. New clause 4 is associated with it, but I shall not be calling for a Division on that.
I hope that the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) will put his feet where his mouth has been. In effect, we have been discussing the amendment that he introduced in Committee, which led to one of the famous tied votes. It was tied not because the hon. Gentleman voted for the Opposition, despite the fact that it was his amendment, but because he voted against his amendment. Let us have a little honour tonight. The hon. Member for Abingdon can support us on new clause 3 because he is neither bound to it nor ashamed by his vote. He can now start with a clean sheet and vote for the right thing.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I sympathise with the Minister's argument that it probably would not be advisable for the Secretary of State to issue a stream of directions to the advisory committee on what it should do. However, it is a proper duty of Parliament, if it regards a matter as of great urgency and importance, to say to the advisory committee that it regards such a matter as of the highest priority and one to which the committee should give urgent and serious attention.
Parliament cannot give such directives except by means of this sort of resolution or clause. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that it would be reasonable for the Government, because they regard the matter as important, to accept the clause, because all it does is to say to the advisory committee that we are glad that it has undertaken the study, that we regard the matter as of the greatest

urgency and importance and that therefore we should be grateful if the Committee would expedite its considerations and get on with the report. By passing the clause, Parliament will have shown its deep and vast concern at the problem of long-term unemployment.
Most serious commentators are now emphatically saying that unemployment will rise to 3 million by the end of the year or early next year. I discount the arguments about how much hidden unemployment there is. If that is correct, the matter of the long-term unemployed will become much more serious.
I cannot see what the Government have to lose in any way. They are not committed to a single penny of expenditure by the clause. If the House of Commons passes the clause, as I hope it will, it will clearly show our profound concern about the long-term unemployment problem. We welcome the fact that the advisory committee has put something in hand, but we wish to get on with the job and have an urgent report in the shortest possible time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 277.

Division No. 184]
[9.18 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dempsey, James


Adams, Allen
Dewar, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dubs, Alfred


Ashton, Joe
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dunnett, Jack


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
English, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Field, Frank


Brown, R. C. (N' castle W)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ford, Ben


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carmichael, Neil
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cartwright, John
Freud, Clement


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
George, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Graham, Ted


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cook, Robin F.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Craigen, J. M.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Crowther, J. S.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cryer, Bob
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Haynes, Frank


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Heffer, Eric S.


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Homewood, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Horam, John


Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howells, Geraint






Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Jo 

Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


John, Brynmor
Robertson, George


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roper, John
 
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Kerr, Russell
Sever, John


Kilfedder, James A.
Sheerman, Barry


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spriggs, Leslie


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Stallard, A. W.


McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


McNally, Thomas
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Marks, Kenneth
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Tilley, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Torney, Tom


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Maxton, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Weetch, Ken


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Welsh, Michael


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
White, Frank R.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Ogden, Eric
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton E)


Parry, Robert



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton.


Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Race, Reg





NOES


Adley, Robert
Best, Keith


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, John


Alison, Michael
Blackburn, John


Ancram, Michael
Blaker, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Body, Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Banks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brinton, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Brittan, Leon


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Brotherton, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)





Bruce-Gardyne, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hooson, Tom


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burden, Sir Frederick
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Butcher, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Clegg, Sir Walter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cockeram, Eric
Latham, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cormack, Patrick
Lee, John


Corrie, John
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Loveridge, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Luce, Richard


Dover, Denshore
McCrindle, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
MacGregor, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Emery, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Major, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Marland, Paul


Farr, John
Marlow, Tony


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Mellor, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James


Goodhew, Victor
Monro, Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gow, Ian
Moore, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morgan, Geraint


Gray, Hamish
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Greenway, Harry
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Mudd, David


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Myles, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Hastings, Stephen
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, Cecil


Hayhoe, Barney
Parris, Matthew


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Patten, John (Oxford)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James






Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Porter, Barry
Stokes, John 

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stradling Thomas, J.


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tebbit, Norman


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhodes James, Robert
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trippier, David


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wakeham, John


Rossi, Hugh
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rost, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wall, Patrick


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitney, Raymond


Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith


Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Peter Brooke.


Stevens, Martin



Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

TAKE-UP OF BENEFITS (No. 2)

'At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (1) he shall cause to be published a report on the number of children for whom no child benefits are paid because they are in the care of a local authority; and any proposals he has for altering this situation.'—[Mr. Rooker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'(6) The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the adequacy of the current level of child support provided through the child benefit, supplementary benefit and social security schemes and this report shall be laid before Parliament.'.
No. 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'(6) the Child Benefit Act 1975 shall be amended as follows:
(a) at the end of section 17(1) there shall be inserted the words "provided that no regulation to take effect on annual uprating shall have the effect of increasing the total child support by less than the figure for inflation adopted by the

Secretary of State for the purposes of section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975.
(b) in section 17 there shall be added a new subsection—
(1A) in subsection (1) above the words 'total child support' shall mean the combined total of child benefit and any increase of benefit payable under section 41 and Schedule 4 Part IV to the Social Security Act 1975".'.

Mr. Rooker: My remarks will relate to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will discuss new clause 5.
I make no apology for making almost the same speech as that which I made in Committee. The amendments are exactly the same as amendments Nos 35 and 36 which I tabled in Committee. I can reproduce them word for word because the votes on those amendments were tied, thanks to the Minister being away on a foreign junket on behalf of the Government.
The problem is simple. The amendments deal with suppot for the children of parents who are sick, unemployed, disabled or widowed. It is not easy to explain what the Government have done, because they have juggled the books in relation to how such children are maintained under the social security system.
Before November 1980 such children received £5·70 a week. That was made up of £1·70 for the person who was sick or unemployed and £4 for the mother in child benefit. When the uprating of 16½ per cent. was made last November the £5·70 should have been increased by about 95p. That would have taken the weekly payment from £5·70 to £6·65. That would have been made up of £4·75 in child benefit and £1·90 for the parent. However, that did not happen. The child benefit went to £4·75 but the dependency addition was reduced to £1·25, making a total for each child of £6. That was an increase of 30p a week for each child.
Let us take the £6 as the starting point because since then there has been another uprating. For the majority of people the social security benefits will increase by 9 per cent. in November this year. For the parents of about 500,000 children the child benefit will increase by 50p. However, national insurance payments for the sick, unemployed and industrially injured will be reduced from £1·25 to 80p a week.
The total child support remaining after last November's increase at £6 is going up this November to £6·05. In two increases, between November 1979 and November 1981, the total increase for a child of someone who is sick and unemployed will have risen from £5·70 per week to £6·05—an increase of 35p over two years—which is well below the rate of all other social security benefits. The increase this year amounts to 0·8 per cent., less than 1 per cent. on the increase of benefits for children of those in the positions I have mentioned.
The cost of keeping a child has risen by more, I suspect, than 35p per week over two years. The Government have actually cut £45 million to £50 million which rightfully belongs under the law to those families. The Government have not had to change the law to do this statistical juggling. That shows that there is a gap in the law, which was not put right by the last Labour Government or the Labour Back Benchers at the time.
The system which operated last November and will operate this November has largely brought about the travesty that I have described. The year 1977 was the first year in which the first child in a family received the family allowance. The increases involved were substantially less


than they are today. I tabled these amendments so that the Opposition and, one hopes, the odd Tory Member, might ask the Government why, over this period, the families of sick and unemployed lost £1·15 to £1·20 per week for their children.
That does not square with the Prime Minister's oft-repeated statement that the Government have maintained child benefit. It is not fair for the Government to say that all assessments took place from November 1979. The country will judge the Government from the day they took office. The Government owe the House and the hall million children and their families an explanation of why they have cheated in this way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
I shall remind the House of some of the events that took place when we had a Labour Government. There was considerable disappointment at the level at which child benefit was introduced. One of the arguments used against us by the press was that the Government were giving a lot of help to children via the subsidy on school meals. We were continually told that that was one of the ways of providing support for the family. I did not believe that that was a valid argument then, but if it was part of the argument about the original fixing of the level of child benefit it ought to be taken into account now that the Government have reduced the amount of subsidy on school meals. If it is claimed that child benefit has kept pace with inflation—which it has not—it ought also to be shown to have kept pace with the reduction in the subsidy on school meals. That is an important point.
I come to new clause 5. I am a foster parent. Therefore, I am one of those who might be affected by the new clause. Also, because I am a foster parent, I am frequently contacted by other foster parents who feel that it is unfair that for the child they are looking after they do not receive child benefit.
The way in which this matter is supposed to work is as follows. Children who are in care do not attract child benefit because the local authority receives money from the Government via the provisions to support the rates. What is supposed to happen is that in the Government's allocation to local authorities there is a sum to compensate for the fact that child benefit is not paid, and then the local authority takes account of that when it works out the boarding out allowances which are to be paid.
That is the theory. In practice it does not work like that. We know that when the Government were considering the level of the rate support grant and the new arrangements last autumn they did not know what level of child benefit they would be introducing in November—or, if they did know, they did not even tell some of their Ministers at the time what level had been chosen. They had not made up their mind about the level. They made a notional calculation of what child benefit would be. Having done that, they made their grant to the local authorities.
When the local authorities receive that money, they do not necessarily pass it on to the boarding out allowances, anyway. It can get lost in all the other areas of local authority expenditure or even within the budget for the personal social services. When it comes to November, when child benefit rises for other children, most boarding

out allowances of most local authorities do not rise to take that into account. It can be argued "The local authority anticipated that and paid out the extra in April" when the authority did not do that.
This is an anomaly. It would seem to be much fairer and much more practical to most foster parents if the child benefit were paid for children who were in care in just the same way as it is for other children. I think that most foster parents do their best to ensure that the foster child feels in exactly the same position as other children do. I argue strongly that paying out child benefit for a foster child would be one of the ways in which we can reduce the differences that such children feel exist in the system.
I finish with the plea that we ought to be giving much more support for the family, and particularly child support. There are very strong arguments for the Government increasing the level of child benefit all round.

Mrs. Chalker: I thought that this debate would be a little longer and a little more substantial. However, I shall do my best to answer the questions put by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in their usual way. They are not unexpected questions.
Perhaps I could explain my rather strange absence from the end of the Committee stage, which has caused these three issues to come before us again tonight. It was that I had understood that there would not be a tying of votes, for whatever good reason. Had I been in any doubt about the matter, I would have gone about my other business several hours later and remained in the Committee. I can only apologise to the House for detaining it on these three issues. These matters sometimes catch us all short.
To return to the issue in hand, let me deal first with new clause 5. The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that he was a foster parent of long standing. I think it right to say, not just to him but to all those who take over this onerous task, that no one underestimates the enormous value that fostering has for children. I can only hope that more people will follow the hon. Gentleman's excellent example—although he must find it more difficult than most fathers, in his position. It is something that gives stability to the lives of children who may, for whatever reason, not have been able to find such stability in their own families.
It is with some regret, therefore, that I say that I cannot accept the new clause. First, the new clause would oblige the Secretary of State, concurrent with the announcement of benefit upratings, to report the number of children for whom no child benefit is paid because they are in local authority care, and, further, to say whether the Secretary of State has any proposals for altering the child benefit provisions relating to such children. I am sure that his intention is as he hinted—to stimulate the change in the provisions.
9.45 pm
Let us examine that for a moment. First, the regulations under the Child Benefit Act 1975 provide that child benefit is not paid for children who have been in local authority care for more than eight weeks unless they return home each week for at least one complete day from midnight to midnight, which ends up being more than what the hon. Gentleman or I might consider to be one day. It is really a day and a half or two days. It is also payable for any child when the child returns home for a complete week from local authority care.
As the hon. Member knows, and certainly other hon. Members will know, one of the most complicated questions about the payment of benefits relates to those moving in and out of temporary care. Therefore, if there were the continuing payment of child benefit, it might make it administratively more convenient. We do not do things in this House necessarily for convenience, but, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North said, whereas child benefit is seen as a contribution towards the cost of a child's maintenance, once the child leaves home and goes into care the onus for maintenance lies with the local authority. It in turn receives Government funds for the purpose through the rate support system.
It is perfectly true that a local authority can require a parent to make a contribution towards a child in care, but once that parent ceases to receive child benefit any contribution can be expected to be reduced accordingly. There are, therefore, no real grounds for continuing to pay the benefit for the children in care, particularly where there is the provision to pay when the child comes home either each week for at least one day or for whole weeks at a time.
We pay the child benefit to the parent for the first eight weeks that a child is in care because, fortunately, some children are in the care of a local authority in a home, or with foster parents, for only a very short while. If we did not continue to pay it for the first eight weeks, there would be a considerable problem about terminating or adjusting benefit for short periods of care.
Information is not at present collected about the number of children in care for whom benefit is not currently in payment. It would be expensive to set up a procedure for obtaining it under current circumstances. That does not mean that it is not possible to do it. At present, I do not believe that the expense would be justified.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Government work out the grant they give to the local authorities to make up for the benefit they do not pay out?

Mrs. Chalker: As far as I am aware, it is done on the basis of the returns made by the local authorities of the children in care whose parents obviously would otherwise be entitled to child benefit if they were not so in care or if they were in care only for up to eight weeks. If I am in error on that point, I shall send the hon. Member a short letter about it.
I understand the role that foster parents play. I appreciate, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee on Tuesday 24 March, as reported in columns 239 and 240 of Hansard, that foster parents should have extra help when other parents receive increased child benefit but that local authorities had not had the additional funds from Government to provide it. I gather that, in the estimate of the support given through the block grant system to local government, the figures for the number of children in care over the previous period are taken into consideration. It is important to allow local authorities to take into account expected expenditure on a range of items, which would include allowances for foster parents.
Wide changes are taking place in many local authority areas. Many authorities feel that it is better to allow children to be with foster parents than have them in community homes. Because there is such a wide variation in practice it would be wrong for the Government to say just how local authorities should allocate the money they

devote to this purpose. Local authorities that already have discretion in the use of their resources can make decisions on the basis of the needs of the children within their area. I sincerely believe that that is the sensible way for them to allocate resources between their competing priorities.
I realise that this does not give the hon. Gentleman what he would like. He wants more money going through the child benefit route to children who are in care with foster parents, but I think this is a better way to decide the resources to be devoted to children in care of the local authorities.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It seems to be anomalous for two sets of foster parents, possibly living fairly close together but having children from different local authorities, to receive different boarding-out allowances for children of identical ages.

Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the question of boarding-out allowances is being discussed in my Department by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health and personal social services. I shall draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's comments. I remember raising the issue when I sat on the Opposition Benches. Yes, I understand that there can be some difficulties, and there are always anomalies. If we believe in decentralised local government we shall always have anomalies between one authority and another.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr said, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with a complicated issue. The hon. Gentleman took us carefully through the figures. I commend to hon. Members a written answer which appears in the Official Report, on 6 April 1981, in c. 209 in reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). We ran into difficulty in Committee because we had no blackboard, so we decided that a question and answer in the Official Report was probably the best way to deal with a complicated matter.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr is right. We discussed this issue at length in Committee, because, as we seek to improve child benefit, the support going to children in all families, regardless of whether the parent is unemployed, sick or in work, so the child dependency additions have been squeezed down in the way described by the hon. Gentleman.
Paul Lewis of the National Council for One-Parent Families put the case very fairly in a letter to me in March, to which I have replied in detail. What we are doing is perfectly legal. Many hon. Members object to it because they say that we are not helping those who are hardest hit. The people on supplementary benefit, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would readily agree, are likely to be hardest hit. For families dependent on supplementary benefit we have sought to increase the age-related additions for children a beat deal more than the child dependency additions because taking the two years together, we felt that they were the people who were most in need of help.
The rate for a child under 5 went up from £5·20 to £7·30, and from next November we propose to increase it to £7·90. Therefore, over the two years, that is an increase of £2·70. On that basis, the increases over the two years, for families dependent on supplementary benefit, for children between 5 and 10, 11 and 12, 13 and 35 and 16 and 17 are 21 per cent., 35 per cent., 21 per cent. and 32


per cent. respectively. In part, that has been the result of the decision last November to reduce the number of age bands from five to three.
We have sought to concentrate the limited resources at our disposal on those families dependent on supplementary benefit. We have made no secret of the fact that by not raising the child dependency additions of national insurance benefits we are working towards an objective which I believe both sides of the House have acknowledged to be the right thing to do, namely, that same amount goes towards the cost of children, whether people are in or out of work. The costs of a child do not change simply because someone is out of work for whatever reason. We appreciate that there must be extra help for those who are hardest hit, and that is why the resources, where available, have been concentrated on those on supplementry benefit.
I could say a lot more on this issue, but that would not change the situation that we face. It was a situation faced by the Labour Governnent in 1977 when they made a similar decision to uprate child benefit but decided not to uprate the child the dependency addition for national insurance beneficiaries by the same amount.
While I understand the Opposition's case, I cannot give the hon. Member for Perry Barr the assurance for which he has asked. As I said to the deputy director of the National Council for One-Parent Families, we have ensured that the available resources are concentrated on families on supplementary benefit who are in real need.
While I understand the problem that has been raised, I hope that the Opposition will realise that there is sense in the move that is taking place. I am sure they agree that we should protect those who are most in need—those on supplementary benefit. We are seeking to ensure that the support for children is the same for people in and out of work by taking gradual steps along that path.

Mr. Rooker: We agree 100 per cent. with the Minister's final remark. Support for children should be the same whether the head of the household is in or out of work. There are two ways of going about it. The Government have chosen to reduce child support for those out of work instead of increasing child benefit for those in work. We agree that the figures should be level. It is iniquitous that there is a gap. However, it would not be the intention of the Opposition—I suspect that the Government have done so by mistake—to reduce the benefit to those for whom it brings greatest gain.
This has been a somewhat briefer debate than we envisaged. We shall divide the House on new clause 5, but we do so only for the convenience of the House and our own arrangements, because our discussions on the Bill overlap today and tomorrow. Basically, we wish to divide on amendments Nos. 9 and 10, but it would be wholly impractical to leave those Divisions until tomorrow because of the time constraint under which we shall operate. The record will show that we are dividing on new clause 5, but we do so to show that we are in favour of amendment Nos. 9 and 10.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 266.

Division No. 185]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Allaun, Frank


Adams, Allen
Alton, David





Anderson, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood
Haynes, Frank


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)
Homewood, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kerr, Russell


Conlan, Bernard
Kilfedder, James A.


Cook, Robin F.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Lambie, David


Craigen, J. M.
Lamborn, Harry


Crowther, J. S.
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McElhone, Frank


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McKelvey, William


Dempsey, James
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dewar, Donald
McNally, Thomas


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Dormand, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Douglas, Dick
McWilliam, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Dubs, Alfred
Marks, Kenneth


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eadie, Alex
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Meacher, Michael


English, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fitch, Alan
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ogden, Eric


Ford, Ben
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Palmer, Arthur


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Penhaligon, David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Freud, Clement
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Race, Reg


George, Bruce
Radice, Giles






Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tilley, John


Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James


Roper, John
Torney, Tom


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ryman, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Sandelson, Neville
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Sever, John
Watkins, David


Sheerman, Barry
Weetch, Ken


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wellbeloved, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Michael


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
White, Frank R.


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Skinner, Dennis
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Spriggs, Leslie
Winnick, David


Stallard, A. W.
Woodall, Alec


Steel, Rt Hon David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stoddart, David



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. George Morton.


Straw, Jack



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Cope, John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Best, Keith
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eggar, Tim


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, Sir William


Blackburn, John
Emery, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brittan, Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fox, Marcus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fry, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodhew, Victor


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodlad, Alastair


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gow, Ian


Butcher, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gray, Hamish


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, B.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Hon A.





Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hannam, John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Hastings, Stephen
Parris, Matthew


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hayhoe, Barney
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Pawsey, James


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Sir Ian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Hicks, Robert
Porter, Barry


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hooson, Tom
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Timothy


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham, Michael
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Le Merchant, Spencer
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sims, Roger


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Mather, Carol
Steen, Anthony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stevens, Martin


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Molyneaux, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Montgomery, Fergus
Trippier, David


Morgan, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, John


Myles, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, B. (Perth)


Needham, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Nelson, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Walters, Dennis






Ward, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Warren, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Watson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William



Whitney, Raymond



Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Newton.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

New Clause 8

PART-TIME WORKING

`The Social Security Advisory Committee shall inquire generally into how best to provide for the accommodation of part-time working capacity within invalidity benefit and in particular shall consider the importance to a disabled person's well-being of being able to do such work as his condition permits, the possibility of combining part-time earnings with a reduced rate of benefit, and how the social security system may best encourage rehabilitation, and shall report as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a second time.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: New clause 8 is an important proposal that is of deep interest to all the organisations concerned with disabled people. Again, we are only asking for a report. If this new clause is resisted, as were the earlier new clauses, Ministers will be open to the charge of obscurantism.
At present, there is a strong disincentive to part-time work for people whose disabilities make full-time work impossible but who might be able to work for more limited hours if the opportunities were available. The social security system does not encourage them to work. The people who are involved fall into two broad categories. First, there are the people whose disabilities are permanent and who could never cope with full-time work. Nicole Davoud's important research has drawn attention to the extent of the unsatisfied demand for part-time work among multiple sclerosis sufferers. A characteristic of that condition is that sufferers tire easily and exceeding the fatigue threshold can exacerbate the condition. As a result, many sufferers are forced to give up work. Often they would be able to continue working part time, if part-time employment were available and financially feasible.
Multiple sclerosis is far from unique in causing a fatigue problem which rules out full-time work. Many chronically sick and disabled people who cannot manage an ordinary day's work or the standard working week could work for more restricted periods. The OPCS survey, "Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain," found that

one in three disabled people under retirement age who had given up work for good had done so because they were unable to work the hours required.
The second major category is of people for whom part-time work may be appropriate, or even essential, as a stepping-stone to normal employment. There are three important sub-groups in this category: people who are recovering from major surgery or a serious illness with a prolonged convalescence period; people who have been permanently disabled by accidents or illness, and who might ultimately be able to work full time again, but for whom a gradual process of rehabilitation is necessary if they are to do so; and, finally, people who are psychiatric patients.
The problem arises because part-time work is poorly paid and because it is not possible to combine it with the receipt of invalidity benefit. According to the new earnings survey of April 1980, with figures updated to December in line with the average earnings index, average male part-time earnings are about £46 per week and average female part-time earnings about £38 per week. However, many part-time jobs pay less.
By comparison, invalidity pension for a married couple is £43·60 per week, with an additional £7·50 for each child, with a possibility of an invalidity allowance also. Those receiving invalidity benefit can earn up to £15 per week therapeutic earnings before losing their benefit. That is not sufficient to permit a person to take a realistic part-time job, nor is it an unconditional entitlement to work. Any work must be medically approved as beneficial to health. The underlying problem is the assumption written into our social security system that people are either wholly fit to work or wholly unfit to work.
In a recent parliamentary reply about the proposal to raise the therapeutic earnings limit, the Minister said:
Invalidity benefit is an incapacity benefit and to extend the present therapeutic earnings limit to the level suggested would be incompatible with this concept."—[Official Report, 10 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 290..]
That shows precisely the flaw in the invalidity benefit scheme as it currently operates. The concept of incapacity on which it rests does not correspond with medical reality. In truth, as I have shown, a large number of people are incapable of full-time work, but could work for two or three hours a day without endangering their health.
The purpose of the new clause is to draw attention to the needs of such people within the invalidity benefits scheme. To cater fully within the scheme for those who work part-time, not full-time, four changes are necessary. First, entitlement to invalidity benefit must be extended to anyone whose physical or mental condition prevents him or her from working a normal working week. Secondly, the requirement that any work done should be "therapeutic" must be abandoned. Thirdly, the earnings limit must be raised substantially. Fourthly, a taper should be introduced so that there is no longer a sharp cut-off point above a certain level. Reduced benefit would then be combined with earnings, the benefit gradually disappearing as earnings increased. I have heard from employers who very much want to employ disabled people on the basis that the DHSS would pay a proportion of the invalidity pension if they were unable to work the standard working week.
The new clause uses the word "rehabilitation" in an important context. As the Minister will appreciate, rehabilitation is about emphasising what disabled people can do, rather than what they are no longer capable of doing. That is an important point. We must this year, above all other years, emphasise that disabled people have abilities as well as disabilities. It is one important aim of the International Year of Disabled People to set in relief the considerable abilities of disabled people. Often rehabilitation of newly disabled people can be hastened by their having a part-time job that they can successfully hold down.
The clause is about helping the disabled to do as much as they can. Most of the disabled want passionately to use their abilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive response. I know from my time at DHSS that there has been a good deal of work carried out on the implications of a partial invalidity benefit. The Minister would, therefore, have much helpful information to convey to the Social Security Advisory Committee in preparing a report. He said earlier that he did not want to burden the Committee with requests. I hope that he will be able to indicate in his reply that it would not be unacceptable to him if the committee were to spend some time on this important issue for the disabled.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for the way in which he proposed the new clause. The Govenment sympathise with the intention underlying the clause. A problem has been highlighted that requires close investigation. I am not very happy about the way in which the present therapeutic earnings rule applies. It is something that we need to improve upon. However, there is the ever-present problem of resources and definition.
There is the need to give assistance to the disabled, to help them become integrated and to enable them to be more useful in society, to make it easier for them to do work and not to allow benefits to act as a disincentive to work. On the other hand, we must avoid the danger of producing a benefit the result of which would be merely to subsidise part-time work and make the issue of disability possibly secondary. It is a narrow path that we have to tread—it is almost a tightrope—if we are to achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed and with which I am in full sympathy. We must ensure that we do not create a system that can be readily abused.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for an investigation so that we may consider the issue and come to a decision on the best way to solve the problem. I accept that. However, I do not wish to create the precedent of the Government or the House telling the advisory committee how to do its work. That is the danger of the clause. I think that I attracted a certain amount of sympathy for that proposition not only from the Opposition Front Bench but from the Opposition Back Benches when we were discussing new clause 3. I then trespassed into the merits of the clause and that meant that a Division was called. I am therefore hesitant to enter into merits and demerits now in case my comments lead to another Division.
The advisory committee has given itself the task of considering social security benefits for the disabled. I invite the House to be content with that. Let the committee

perform the task that it has set itself and let it produce its report voluntarily and not by compulsion of the House. When that has been done we shall be in a position to debate among ourselves such indications as it gives us of the way ahead.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister's reply was a little disappointing. I accept his argument that he should not have to tell the Social Security Advisory Committee what it should be doing. He also tells us that it is looking into a wider topic. I believe that it is in a specific area where finding a solution is difficult.
In the new clauses today we have been asking for inquiries to be made. This proposal runs into a major resources problem. I suggest to the Government that the amount of money required would be small compared to that required for the other inquiries. The problem is to find a scheme which is fair and just. This, therefore, is one of the areas in which the Social Security Advisory Committee will not be asked to look at the matter specifically. However, there should be a request for an inquiry which specifically goes into the problems and comes up with a solution in a short period, so that we can look at the problem of resources.

Mr. Rossi: I said that that was being done. Therefore, a request, directive or diktat from the House is not required. I was hoping that I had satisfied all hon. Members that that was so and that, therefore, it was not necessary to press the matter.

Mr. Bennett: I thought that the Minister said that the Government were looking at the whole question of supplementary benefits and the disabled. I am suggesting that this is an important section which needs to be considered in great detail so that a workable scheme is produced. If the Minister its saying that within its general inquiry, the Social Security Advisory Committee is looking at this specific area and will come up with a specific workable scheme., I shall take back some of my words.

Mr. Rossi: My information is that the committee is considering this specific matter as well as the generality of the need for social security benefits for the disabled.

Mr. Bennett: I welcome that. I hope that it will be in the committee's first report and that the implication of the resource will be considered. I hope that the Government will be able to implement that proposal shortly.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for the information which he has conveyed to us tonight. I hope that the Social Security Advisory Committee will move as quickly as possible in reporting on the financial problems of disabled people. I do not feel that we should press the new clause in the light of what the Minister has said. Therefore, I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide.

Mr. Buchan: It is my formal duty to withdraw the clause. I thank the Minister for being a little more


forthcoming and gracious in his reply than he was earlier. We are pleased that he is at least working on the Social Security Advisory Committee. We shall look forward to the report. I thank the Minister for the assurance that he has not pre-empted his decision on possible resources. I am glad that that is left open.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — The People's Bank

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Gummer.]

Mr. Marcus Fox: It is with some trepidation that I introduce this Adjournment debate, which is concerned with The People's Bank, which to many people might imply that it is related to the People's Republic of China. I hasten to assure the House that it is nothing of the kind. The People's Bank is concerned with the Provident Financial Group, which is based in the city of Bradford.
At this stage I must announce that I have not brought my notes with me because the Adjournment debate came on so quickly. Therefore, I can hardly blame the Minister for not being here. In a sense I am not quite as unbriefed as he is.
The Banking Act 1979 was introduced because of the secondary banking collapse in 1974. It was felt that protection should be given to those who innocently put their money into financial institutions. Under the Act, the Bank of England had to accord recognition to any organisation that wished to use the name "bank". Sensibly, the Bank of England is operating a screening process, but I am concerned about the way in which it is doing so.
We have a creditable banking institution in Britain. The major banks provide services in the High Street that people are satisfied with, but the services do not reach everyone. About 40 per cent. of our adult population—some 17 million people—do not have a bank account, which hardly shows that the system is working, yet the Bank of England is removing from certain organisations the right to use the name "bank".
One criterion in the Act is that whichever organisation seeks to use the title must be of sound financial standing. In addition, it must operate a wide range of banking services or—and this is crucial—it must provide a specialised service. Last year the Bank of England decided that the People's Bank, which is based in Bradford, should not use the title. The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street must come down from her pedestal. She behaves as if the People's Bank has sprung out of thin air. It has not. It is part of the Provident Financial Group—in the old days known as the Provident Clothing Co.—which has been a byword in my part of the world for 100 years. It has more than 400 branches in the United Kingdom, 10,000 agents and 1 million customers. I can remember the Provident being in Yorkshire all my life.
Its claims go further. [Interruption.] I must ask my hon. Friends to listen carefully. I have no notes and am speaking from my heart. In the secondary banking collapse the group maintained its reputation, which was not easy. The people who had invested money with the group continued to do so. It came through the crisis with its reputation enhanced. The way in which the Bank of England is operating the 1979 Act is incredible. During that period some banks were in difficulty. They had to take to the lifeboats. I shall not specifically mention those in difficulty, because some of them are household names in banking. Some of the 300 banks that have been recognised had recourse to the Bank of England's rescue operation.
This company passed through that period unscathed but has been told by the Bank of England that it cannot use the

title "bank". It is perfectly natural for the leading cheque trading company to offer its customers a sophisticated service. That is all that it seeks to do. The People' s Bank was bought in 1971. It was not until 1978 that the bank opened branches on a fairly large scale. The customers responded. One should consider the great "unbanked" of this country.
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. He will have no difficulty in replying to the debate. He knows that this issue has been before a tribunal. Shortly, the tribunal's findings will be on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's desk. The Provident Financial Group has 1 million customers. It is natural that it should say that it needs to provide a wider service. Its customers want such a service.
What sort of service can be provided? With 10,000 agents calling weekly, people will be able to save on a regular basis. The bank now has 10 branches. There are branches, not only in Yorkshire—which is my main interest—but in the Midlands, Hanley, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Washington and Bristol. The head office is in Yorkshire. Therefore, I must kill the idea that the People's Bank is a small operation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday a system whereby those entitled to benefits could have them paid into a bank. Incidentally, I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security is on the Front Bench. That concept must be right. Later in his statement my right hon. Friend made it clear that we should move away from cash transactions and go towards the transmission of money through the banking system. Therefore, if people are to receive their benefits, they must have bank accounts..
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows about the subject of this debate. He should keep in close touch with the Secretary of State for Social Services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State implied that more people should have bank accounts and that people should be more sophisticated. Hon. Members have often advocated that the weekly wage should be paid not in cash but through the banking system.
The company has been established for 100 years and has £140 million in assets, but the Bank of England has decided that it does not have the necessary financial standing. That is nonsense. The Bank of England must realise that the 1979 Act was not intended to enable it to operate a closed shop or to protect the High Street banks, which have been in business for many a long year and yet have left many people without the benefits of the services which I have described. [Interruption.]
The Opposition should be careful about showing hilarity on the subject. Many of their constituents would benefit from the services of the People's Bank.

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fox: No. I refuse to give way. This is an Adjournment debate.
The services offered by the People's Bank include being open six days a week from 9 am to 5 pm, including Saturday. If that does not qualify under the Act as a specialised service, I do not know what does. The bank gives 2 per cent. interest on current accounts and a much higher rate on deposit. Its success is such that between August 1978 and December 1980 more than 15,000


accounts were opened. The need is there. Amongst the 300 recognised banks are some strange names, such as the Well's Fargo Bank. The People's Bank is worth far more than the Well's Fargo Bank.
I remember my school days and the Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. It was established in the 1800s by a philanthropic capitalist—such people existed in those days—who wanted to protect his workers from the money-lending fraternity. At school we were encouraged to put a penny a week aside. When we had saved £1 an account was opened at the Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. It cost the bank £2,000—a lot of money—to provide that service. The success with the help of teachers was such that in one year 2 million transactions took place. The Yorkshire Penny Bank Ltd. is now a big bank in every sense of the word and is recognised as such. Under the 1979 Act it would never have got off the ground.
How can a bank offer a wide range of services if it is not allowed to start operating? The Bank of England is trying to prevent it. I do not blame the Minister because he has not yet seen the submission from the tribunal. Parliament never intended to stop new entrants into banking. It never intended that a closed shop should operate, and yet that is what is happening.
I make no apology for raising the issue tonight.
Many people in this country are still outside the so-called Establishment. I consider myself to be part of the Establishment. I do not use the word in any derogatory way. I simply mean that we do not open up all our institutions as we should do. The banking fraternity is a classic example. I imagine that my right hon. Friend will say "But if they have to remove the word 'bank' from their title they can still operate as licensed deposit takers". That is the expression used in the Act. That will not do. What is a licensed deposit taker? Imagine that 10 sign writers appear in the branches that I have described, in Washington new town, in Bristol, in Swindon and other places, put up their ladders and scrape off the word "bank". What will that do as far as confidence is concerned?
There are hon. Members in the Chamber who are much more able than I in coining words and phrases. I know of no word other than "banking" to describe the services involved in this field. If anybody can suggest another word, I will accept it, but it will put the banks in what can only be described as a secondary position.
This financial institution has been going for 100 years, with an unblemished record of success, with profits of £8 million this year and £140 million worth of assets. It wants to open six further branches this year and eight more every year from now on. The Bank of England has got it wrong. It had better look very carefully at the way in which it is recognising banks of the sort that I have described. There are more than 300 on this list.
In view of what took place yesterday, it would be a great disservice to many of my constituents if this bank were treated in this way. It does not deserve it. It has every right to continue to use the term "the People's Bank." Parliament, in its wisdom, should encourage more people to open bank accounts and to be thrifty. I should have thought that my Government, my party of all parties, would want to see this service extended.
When we think of the problems facing Barclays, the Midland, National Westminster and Lloyds, we cannot

pretend that the major banks are succeeding in providing the service for which many of our constituents are asking. The People's Bank is providing a unique service. It it is tapping a market that no one else has gone for, and I believe that it will be able to do so with increasing success. I wish it every success. I am staggered that its submission to the Bank of England for recognition was turned down and that no appeal tribunal has sat. I do not know what report has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In all fairness, the Bank of England ought to allow this bank to continue as it has done so successfully.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): The House knows full well the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox) over this matter. The People's Bank to which he has referred is in the part of the country that he represents with such distinction. It is right that he should bring this matter before the House.
This issue stems from the Banking Act 1979. [Interruption] That Act was introduced by the previous Government—which the ill-mannered semi-sedentary intervention from the Opposition Front Bench might not have led the unwary to understand. That Act provides for a statutory framework for the authorisation and supervision of deposit-taking institutions by the Bank of England. It is the Bank of England's responsibility under the Act—

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lawson: No, I am not giving way; I have very little time.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Lawson: I am not giving way.
The Bank of England has to implement this Act. The Act lays down a two-tier system of recognised banks, on the one hand, and authorised deposit takers, or licensed deposit-takers, on the other hand. In reaching its decision, the Bank is required to judge each application against the minimum criteria for deposit taking institutions, which are set out in the Act. These criteria, which were approved by Parliament during the passage of the Banking Act through Parliament in early 1979, are laid down in schedule 2 to the Act—part 1 for the recognised banks and part 2 for licensed institutions.
The criteria which are set out in part 1 of schedule 2 provide that the distinctive attributes of a recognised bank are not only the high reputation and standing that an institution will have built up over time in the financial community, but the provision in reasonable depth of a wide range of banking services in this country.
There is a provision for appeals. Under section 11 of the Act, an institution which is aggrieved by a decision by the Bank, as is the case with the People's Bank, can appeal against the decision to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor is then required to refer all these appeals for a hearing before persons appointed for the purpose. The appointed persons are then required to hear the appeal and submit a report to the Chancellor with their recommendations for the determination of the appeal.
In deciding on an appeal under section 11 of the Act the Chancellor is obliged to act in a judicial capacity, and in no other capacity. That is not necessarily quite the end of


the road, because under section 13 of the Act an institution, or the Bank of England, may appeal to the court on a point of law—I emphasise that—arising from a decision by the Chancellor on an appeal under section 11
I turn to the specific appeal by the People's Bank. On 9 September last year the People's Bank lodged an appeal to the Chancellor against the Bank of England's decision to grant it a full licence instead of recognition. This appeal was heard on 15 and 16 January this year before the persons appointed by the Chancellor for the purpose. These are professional people, altogether outside Government.
I can confirm that the appointed persons submitted their report to the Chancellor last week, with their recommendations for the determination of the appeal. The Chancellor is now considering the report and recommendations and will be announcing his decision very shortly. In those circumstances, because the matter is to that extent sub-judice—as I emphasised, the Chancellor has to act in a judicial capacity; that is the law—I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the Bank's decision in this case. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw the Chancellor's attention to the points that he has made in this debate.
I have little time left. I turn briefly to the provisions of the Act which deal with the use of banking names and descriptions. My hon. Friend was particularly concerned that the People's Bank would not, if the decision goes against it, be able to call itself a bank any longer. That does not mean that it will not be allowed to continue in business. Of course it will, and long may it do so. If an institution wishes to start up, it will be able to do so. Indeed, the scope of the two-tier system set up under the Act is relatively limited. Nothing whatever in the Act

prevents a licensed institution from offering or providing any type of banking service, but it cannot call itself a bank. That is set out in section 36 of the Act.
One of the main reasons for that distinction is that it reflects in a more codified form the informal system of supervision and surveillance which existed prior to the passing of the Banking Act. It is an integral part of the two-tier system that the two tiers should be clearly identifiable as such by members of the public. [Interruption.] Although hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench are sniggering, the protection of depositors, particularly small depositors, should be a matter of some importance to us all.
Clearly, there would be no point in any two-tier system if the institutions that had not gained recognition as a bank were none the less able to represent themselves as such. The provisions of section 36 dealing with banking names and descriptions are, therefore, a natural concomitant of the two-tier system. They enable depositors to distinguish between the recognised and the licensed sectors.
Under the provisions of the Act, any depositor can be certain that any institution that holds itself out to be a bank and accepts deposits from the public has both a high reputation and standing and offers a wide range of banking services to the investing public. That is surely of value and benefit, particularly to the small depositor.
There are bound to be cases on the border line whenever a two-tier system of any kind is established. It is impossible for me to comment on this specific case because of its sub judice nature and the fact that the papers are at present before the Chancellor. I can only repeat that the Chancellor will certainly read what my hon. Friend has said and take it fully into account when he makes his judgment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o' clock.